There is no western country in the world where there is no significant black white IQ gap.The gap is smallest at childhood but highest at adulthood. Again confirming the fact that genetic factors play the smallest during childhood while the biggest during adulthood.
(2013) Edward Dutton and Richard Lynn conclude that Finland has suffered a negative Flynn Effect between the years of 1997 and 2009 in all IQ metrics.
These results are in contrast to the gain Finland accrued between 1988 and 1997. The likely cause is the massively increased importation of migrants from other races, ethnicities, and cultures within that time period coupled with a slackening of mate selection criterion and racial endogamy. These findings are in-line with the consensus that outbreeding reduces IQ and the importation of migrants preempts that happening.
The manifestation of dysgenics in Finland supports IQ heritability, differences between races, and opposes the Flynn Effect and miscegenation propaganda in the same manner.
(2015) Michael Woodley and Curtis Dunkel conclude that France has suffered a 4-point drop in IQ scores in the decade between 1999 and 2008-9 during a period of mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa in particular.
Their conclusions are as follows
• Dutton and Lynn have identified a 4 point decline in French IQ. • Dysgenics and replacement migration are causes. • French IQ losses are found to be associated with the Jensen effect (ρ = .833). • A common factor of g loadings and 3 biological variables loads on the loss-vector. • This supports biological causation.
(2010) Douglas Massey concludes that human ethnocentrism is driven biologically and it is a natural, healthy phenomenon. This is indicated by increases in oxytocin when acting ethnocentrically and decreases when acting in a humanitarian manner to other races. He further concludes that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and derogation of the out-group.
(2012) Alvarez and Levy begin their study by stating their assumption that ethnic diversity will lead to gains in health for African and Mexican Americans and conclude their study by showing that it leads to a degradation in general health of African-Americans, an increase in health in White Hispanics, and a decrease in health in non-White Hispanics. The rates of heart disease and cancer are heightened for all races studied in more ethnically diverse communities.
(2012) Vogel, Monesson, and Scott conclude that infants develop ethnocentrism naturally as a means to help their survival and nurture their growth. Babies demonstrate this ethnocentrism before exposure to other races.
(2015) Dinesen et. al., conclude that being within 80 metres of an individual of another ethnicity or race reduces social trust and creates feelings of unease. This is concluded to be a natural evolutionary response to the out-group.
(1976) Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg conclude that Black children raised in wealthy White homes show better intellectual performance in their youth than Black children raised in Black homes. This supports the idea of youth malleability in the area of intelligence.
The White children in wealthy White homes performed even better in an amount matching the Black-White gap that can be seen in tests of IQ and academic performance outside of this experiment.
(1983) Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg conclude their experiment from the 1970s by testing the children again as adults.
Regardless of youth results, both races regressed to their respective racial means. The White-Black gap still existed and was not reduced.
These findings show that IQ malleability in youth exists, but it levels off as individuals age and subsequently regress to their racial means. These results further prove that there is a genetically heritable component to IQ and that there is an innate difference between different racial groups in this arena
(2015) Shakeshaft et al., analyze 360.000 sibling pairs, 9.000 twin pairs, and 3.000.000 18-year-olds in order to determine the heritability of IQ and its relation to genetic factors.
They conclude that IQ is, "familial, heritable, and caused by the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for the normal distribution of intelligence." They show that high-intelligence is, "a good candidate for, 'positive genetics,'" and conclude that there is a positive end to the distribution of intelligence as it is.
They show that there is no support for the Discontinuity Hypothesis that IQ is the result of environment or that mental illness is the result of something besides genetics.
In total, they conclude that IQ is extremely heritable (85% or more), genetic, polygenic, and does not arise from environmental factors but instead merely interacts with them. They show that people with exceptionally high IQs also tend to have other positive traits and very few negative genetic factors or expressed traits. They conclude IQ has almost no relation to de novo mutations, i.e., new mutations in DNA and that it nearly always matches what is heritable. They show that mental illness does not arise from environmental factors either and must arise from genetic factors and their interaction with the environment. These conclusions lend more credence to both Dual-Inheritance and the Continuity Hypothesis of IQs and Mental Illness.
(2009) Rushton & Ankney analyze data from various studies of over 1.000.000 individuals and confirm that there is a positive correlation between brain size and IQ. Larger skulls have larger brains on average and larger brains have higher IQs on average.
They conclude that this phenomenon is likely primarily genetic and as socioeconomic conditions reach a certain level the effects of nutrition on this narrow down and genetic gaps thus become more visible and exposed.
(2009) Rushton & Ankney analyze data from various studies of over 1.000.000 individuals and confirm that there is a positive correlation between brain size and IQ. Larger skulls have larger brains on average and larger brains have higher IQs on average.
They conclude that this phenomenon is likely primarily genetic and as socioeconomic conditions reach a certain level the effects of nutrition on this narrow down and genetic gaps thus become more visible and exposed.
(2005) Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen (author of, "The g Factor") conclude that IQ is the greatest indicator of future success in Western societies when inter-generational income dependence is accounted for.
They also found that IQ is at least 50% heritable and likely nearer to 80% heritable. To draw comparison, height is 70-90% heritable.
During their analysis they concluded that Whites have a minimum of 75% IQ heritability.
This means that crystallized and fluid forms of intelligence are both genetically transferrable from parent-to-child and have a sort of genetic, "stacking," effect.
The more intelligence alleles an individual possesses the greater expressed effect unlike epistatic genes like those for hair or skin color.
(2005) Toga & Thompson conclude that genetic influences on brain morphology also contribute significantly to IQ and in their own words, "A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to be genetic."
(2001) Thompson et al., conclude in their own words that, "A genetic continuum was detected in which brain structure was increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic affinity. Genetic factors significantly influenced cortical structure in Broca's and Wernicke's language areas, as well as frontal brain regions," and, "Preliminary correlations were performed suggesting that frontal gray matter differences may be linked to Spearman's g, which measures successful test performance across multiple cognitive domains (p < 0.05). These genetic brain maps reveal how genes determine individual differences, and may shed light on the heritability of cognitive and linguistic skills, as well as genetic liability for diseases that affect the human cortex."
This further suggests that brain structure, size, and cognitive performance are all heritable and genetic
(2012) Rushton concludes that there has been no narrowing in the mean Black-White IQ difference predicted by heritable g.
Rushton also invalidates research by Nisbett, Dickens, and Flynn that show black gains in IQ by evaluating their lack of data and use of specious arguments. He shows that the little data they had to prove these points obscured the topic by invoking alleged age and social class interactions and adoption studies of very young children. Their data was based on ideas, not observations. In his own words on the twin studies cited: "There is no evidence of any special cultural influence, such as extreme deprivation or being raised as a visible minority, that operates in one group and not in others."
He shows using a meta-analysis that there has been no reduction in the mean racial differences between Blacks and Whites and that all claims of, "systemic issues," are spurious and unsupported by factual evidence. The credence given to researchers saying that society is to blame for the failures of adopted Blacks comes from a cursory glance at a specious statement - they have no evidence.
(2013) Karen Wynn shows that infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who are nice to people of their race and dislike people mean to their race. In addition to this they also like people that are mean to others races and dislike people that are nice to other races.
This occurs before full development of metacognition and the effects are apparent even in youths that have developed metacognition but not been in contact with other races substantially.
(2006) Templer & Arikawa analyze populations by temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ and find stark correlations between all of them.
They were able to accurately predict individual IQ by skin color (0,92), mean high Winter temperature of their race (0,76), mean low Winter temperature of their race (0,66), and per capita income (0,63). These findings provide strong support for the idea that colder climates caused selection for higher IQs over an evolutionary epoch.
This helps to explain why groups from hotter climates like those found in Africa are less intelligent and thus earn lower incomes.
(2005) Mekel-Bobrov et al., conclude that the gene ASPM is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. They show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5.800 years ago in Eurasia and has since swept to high frequency across Eurasia under strong positivel selection.
The gene is almost non-existent in Sub-Saharan Africa.
(1998) Thomas, Miller & Mascie-Taylor conclude that the EST00083 ("expressed sequence tag") is an mtDNA (mitochondrial; maternal) polymorphism found more often in high IQ groups. It is articularly common in Europe (less so in Asia) where it is associated with a lineage that dates back 35.000 years. It is nearly non-existent in Africa.
This finding goes along with a discovery by Turner & Partington in 1991 that shows mothers are the primary component in a child's intelligence.
(1998) The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education concludes that at all family income levels, there is a persisting racial gap in SAT scores and that the poorest White children outperform the richest Black children. This further suggests that environment is not the explanation for intelligence or the racial testing gap.
These findings are supported by (Binkley & Collin, 2013; North Carolina SAT Report, 2010; Dixon-Roman & Ezekiel et al., 2013; La Griffe du Lion Volume II Number III, 2000; Wightman, 1994; Murray & Herrnstein, 1996; Scarr & Weinberg, 1983; Scarr & Weinberg, 1976; Ciotti, 1998; Arthur Jensen, 1998; Keyes et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2012; Hicks et al., 2004; Iacono et al., 1999; Hur & Bouchard, 1995; Alford, Funk & Hibbing, 2005; Block & Block, 2005; Bouchard et al., 2012; Lykken et al., 1993)
(1998) Paul Ciotti analyzes, "The Kansas City Desegregation Experiment," and shows its results.
For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.
Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per Black pupil–more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.
The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.
The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.
Caleb Campbell
Godspeed, OP. I got a 25 day ban for posting a reply to a salt thread on election night saying "Archive everything. This board will be deleted in a few hours. Will post link to new board soon."
(2002) Davide Piffer concludes that the genes rs9320913 (A), rs3783006 (C), rs8049439 (T), rs13188378 (G), rs11584700 (G), rs4851266 (T), rs2054125 (T), rs3227 (C), rs4073894 (A) and rs12640626 are genes associated with intelligence and brain-size.
rs236330 is a gene strongly expressed in neurons, including hippocampal neurons and developing brains, where it regulates neuronal morphology.
rs324650 is a gene involved in neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.
East Asian populations (Japanese, Koreans, Bei-Chinese) have the highest average frequency of these alleles (39%) with the slimmest curve of distributions. Europeans have the second-highest amount of these alleles (35,5%) with a right-leaning and wide curve. Sub-Saharan Africans have the lowest frequencies of these alleles (16,4%) with a remarkably slim curve of distributions.
He states that these are not the only genes associated with intelligence but they are some of the known genes for intelligence and brain-size determination. They vary in prevalence across different populations and are evidence of recent polygenic selection.
(2007) Witherspoon et. al., conclude that Lewontin's Fallacy that individuals within populations are more genetically unique than between populations is false when more than one genetic variable is used.
They show that Lewontin's Fallacy is based upon cherry-picked selection of specific single nucleotide polymorphisms common to all humans and upon selecting for as few as two single nucleotide polymorphisms the differences become readily apparent and classable. Genetic stratification as a result of this is inevitable without cherry-picking.
When comparing populations at an individual locus they can be shown to be similar and possibly overlapping - when scientists analyze populations over many thousands of loci they never overlap
Camden Hughes
There
Matthew Thomas
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/ It literally says they are all immigrants. Likely the top of the top. Not to mention It has no data on them performing as well as whites is simply states that they perform better than African Americans. They then go on to claim that the amount of them in academia proves that they are doing well as we both know that is not the case.
Ryder Clark
First off, race doesn't exist as stormfags like you would have it, hence making Race obselete, and thus dismissing the fact that it is a factor for intelligence.
Lee et al. 2008: "We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores"
AAA 1998: "For example, 'Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic 'racial' groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them.'"
Keita, S O Y; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. "Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term."
Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. "Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity."
Rushton and Ankney do not use raw measurements of cranial capacity, instead they attempt to adjust the values using a mathematical formula that's meant to compensate for the effect of overall body size on brain size, but the formula they use is disputed by other scientists, see cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_reply_rushton.html :
Ethan Cruz
Rushton's attempt to apply r/K selection theory to different groups of humans is seen as ignorant by actual evolutionary biologists (Rushton was a psychology professor, as far as I know he had no training in evolutionary biology), see scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles and in particular the section titled "Selection Scenario for Race Differences in r and K" which says:
Joseph Lee
Jensen's MCV has been criticized with regards to the claim that it supports the later formulation of Spearman's hypothesis. Dolan et al. (2004) argue that MCV lacks specificity: that is, that instances not including g differences could create a positive correlation between the magnitude of the group differences and the g-loadings. Dolan et al. (2004) note that they are specifically criticizing MCV as a way of proving that group differences largely or totally represent g differences; they don't argue against Spearman's hypothesis as originally formulated and they do not argue that the larger body of evidence does not support Spearman's hypothesis as later formulated. Hunt and Carlson summarize criticism: The essence of these objections is that the method of correlated vectors does not consider alternative hypotheses concerning the latent traits that might give rise to the observed difference in test scores. When a more appropriate method of analysis, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, is applied, it has been found that Spearman's hypothesis (i.e., that the difference is due to differences in general intelligence) is only one of several models that could give rise to the observed distributions in test scores (Dolan, 2000). These findings render the method of correlated vectors ambiguous—which is not the same as saying that the Jensen-Rushton position is incorrect. Our point is that the argument for the default hypothesis is an indirect one. It would be far better if a direct causal argument could be made linking racial/ethnic genetic differences to studies of the development of the brain. Flynn argues that the most g-loaded and heritable tests are those that have seen the highest increases due to the Flynn effect. More generally, Flynn (2010) has criticized the basic assumption that confirmation of Spearman's hypothesis would support a partially genetic explanation for IQ differences. He argues that environmental causes for average group IQ differences would cause the differences to be greater for more complex tasks.
Logan Clark
In regards to the IQ gap the question becomes whether racial groups can be shown to be influenced by different environmental factors that may account for the observed differences between them. Jensen originally argued that given the high heritability of IQ the only way that the IQ gap could be explained as caused by the environment would be if it could be shown that all blacks were subject to a single "x-factor" which affected no white populations while affecting all black populations equally, as covered by Jensen (1998)
Jensen considered the existence of such an x-factor to be extremely improbable, but Flynn's discovery of the Flynn effect showed that in spite of high heritability environmental factors could cause considerable disparities in IQ between generations of the same population, showing that the existence of such an x-factor was not only possible but real, (Flynn 2012)
Today researchers such as Hunt (2010), Nisbett (2012) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that rather than a single factor accounting for the entire gap, probably many different environmental factors differ systematically between the environments of White and Black people converge to create part of the gap and perhaps all of it. They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. They point specifically to studies showing a higher heritability of test scores in White and medium-high SES families, but considerably lower heritability for Black and low-SES families. This they interpret to mean that children who grow up with limited resources do not get to develop their full genetic potential.
medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a#.szu5juwgb "Ten years after the casino’s arrival, Costello’s findings showed that the younger the age at which children escaped poverty, the better their teenage mental health. Among her youngest age cohort, Costello observed a “dramatic decrease” in criminal conduct. In fact, the Cherokee children in her study were now better behaved than the control group. On seeing the data, Costello’s first reaction was disbelief. “The expectation is that social interventions have relatively small effects,” she later said. “This one had quite large effects.” Professor Costello calculated that the extra $4,000 per annum resulted in an additional year of educational attainment by age 21 and reduced the chance of a criminal record at age 16 by 22%." "“Our effects correspond to between 13 and 14 IQ points,” Shafir says. “That’s comparable to losing a night’s sleep or the effects of alcoholism.” What’s remarkable is that we could have figured all this out 30 years ago. Shafir and Mullainathan weren’t relying on anything so complicated as brain scans. “Economists have been studying poverty for years and psychologists have been studying cognitive limitations for years,” Shafir explains. “We just put two and two together.” It all started a few years ago with a series of experiments conducted at a typical American mall. Shoppers were stopped to ask what they would do if they had to pay to get their car fixed. Some were presented with a $150 repair job, others with one costing $1,500. Would they pay it all in one go, get a loan, work overtime, or put off the repairs? While the mall-goers were mulling it over, they were subjected to a series of cognitive tests. In the case of the less expensive repairs, people with a low income scored about the same as those with a high income. But faced with a $1,500 repair job, poor people scored considerably lower. The mere thought of a major financial setback impaired their cognitive ability. Shafir and his fellow researchers corrected for all possible variables in the mall survey, but there was one factor they couldn’t resolve: The rich folks and the poor folks questioned weren’t the same people. Ideally, they’d be able to repeat the survey with subjects who were poor at one moment and rich the next. Shafir found what he was looking for some 8,000 miles away in the districts of Vilupuram and Tiruvannamalai in rural India. The conditions were perfect; as it happened, the area’s sugarcane farmers collect 60% of their annual income all at once right after the harvest. This means they are flush one part of the year and poor the other. So how did they do in the experiment? At the time when they were comparatively poor, they scored substantially worse on the cognitive tests, not because they had become dumber people somehow — they were still the same Indian sugarcane farmers, after all — but purely and simply because their mental bandwidth was compromised."
>B-but food doesn't affect intelligence
The graphs that you may call "unsourced" come from here
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/ which does provide the original sources for them–the first was found at theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/11/how-fair-is-britain-data and the second was from a paper by the Institute for Public Policy Research at ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/03/back-to-basics-integration_Mar2013_10525.pdf (it's table 6.1 on p. 43).
Josiah Rodriguez
Nisbett (2012) suggests that high SES individuals are more likely to be able to develop their full biological potential, whereas low SES individuals are likely to be hindered in their development by adverse environmental conditions. The same review also points out that adoption studies generally are biased towards including only high and high middle SES adoptive families, meaning that they will tend to overestimate average genetic effects. They also note that studies of adoption from lower-class homes to middle-class homes have shown that such children experience a 12 - 18 pt gain in IQ relative to children who remain in low SES homes.
A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities, as stated by Neisser.
"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."
That being said, if we are going to continue with the whole IQ factor and why blacks as an average tend to perform badly academically…
The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors that are seen as "acting white." as covered by Neisser 1996 and Ogbu 1978, 1994
Environmental factors are also why blacks tend to score lower on the iq test. Environmental factors including lead exposure, breast feeding, (as stated by Campbell, 2002) and nutrition (as covered by Ivanovic, 2004 and Salojee and Pettifor, 2001) can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning. As stated by Qian (2005), For iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points.
Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity. (As covered in The Lancet Series on Maternal and child Undernutrition, 2008)
The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care (Nesbit, 2009 and Cooper 2005).
Mackintosh (2011) points out that for American Blacks infant mortality is about twice as high as for whites, and low birthweight is twice as prevalent. At the same time white mothers are twice as likely to breastfeed their infants, and breastfeeding is highly correlated with IQ for low birthweight infants. In this way a wide number of health related factors that influence IQ are unequally distributed between the two group.
Adrian Scott
The most definitive proof of Africans’ grossly underestimated genotypic IQ (80 according to Lynn, or 70 according to Jensen and Rushton, et al) has come in recent years from the performance of African school children in the UK. These results sparked instant reactions in the IQ debate world as soon as they started being reported by the news media, with some strong hereditarians suddenly becoming some kind of neo-environmentalists just to explain why white school children were not showing the kind of academic superiority over blacks that they have become accustomed to in the United States (wrong tests, declining white culture, an alleged war on whites, etc – the same kinds of reasons they always dismissed from liberal environmentalists explaining black underachievement in the US). The first report that caused some consternation in the IQ blogosphere indicated that black African pupils were apparently catching up with British white pupils on their GCSE tests and that in fact, they had already overtaken them at the lower end: the poor black kids were now performing better than poor white kids
unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Chisala-3.png
What most scholars and bloggers in the IQ world seemed to not know is that by the time these pieces of news were coming out in the media, there were already African nationalities that had overtaken the white average by a significant margin. The reason it seemed that the black Africans were only trying to catch up now was the usual academic tendency of lumping Africans together into one big racial group when other groups were being identified by nationality (e.g. Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, etc rather than “Asian” or “South-East Asian” etc). Grouping Africans into the monolithic “Black African” ethnicity concealed the different experiences of African immigrants from different nations, some of whom had emigrated as refugees from war-torn countries, while others lad left countries that did not speak much English and were thus disadvantaged in the tests. A negative correlation with English as Another Language was evident on both the CAT scores and the GCSE scores.
As the table above shows, some African nationalities, particularly Ghanaians and Nigerians, score way above the England mean (and the white British mean), while others, like the Somalis and Congolese, score way below (but still not as low as the Portuguese immigrants, apparently). The low scoring African groups are the ones that migrated as refugees and/or could not speak English, besides being very poor. Improvements among the Somalians have been impressive, especially due to programs dedicated to teaching them English. Although the Chinese and Indians are still very conspicuously above even the best African nationalities, their superiority disappears when the Nigerian and other groups are broken down even further according to their different tribal ethnicities. Groups like the famous Igbo tribe, which has contributed much genetically to the African American blacks, are well known to be high academic achievers within Nigeria. In fact, their performance seems to be at least as high as the “model minority” Chinese and Indians in the UK, as seen when some recent African immigrants are divided into languages spoken at home (which also indicates that these are not multigenerational descendants but children of recent immigrants).
Jason Wood
Proposed causes of the Flynn Effect include improvements in test-specific skills (Greenfield, 1998; Wicherts et al., 2004), improvements in nutrition (Lynn, 1989, 1990), urbanization (Barber, 2005), improvements in health care (Williams, 1998), a trend towards smaller families (Zajonc & Mullally, 1997), increases in educational attainment (Ceci, 1991), greater environmental complexity (Schooler, 1998), and the working of genotype by environment correlation in the increasing presence of more intelligent others (Dickens & Flynn, 2001). Many of these environmental variables have not undergone the improvement in developing sub-Saharan African countries that they have in the developed world over the last century. This suggests that the Flynn Effect has great potential in sub-Saharan Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010b).
>Although the implications of our psychometric findings for the potential of the Flynn Effect in sub-Saharan Africa remain unclear, the Raven's tests and other IQ tests have shown robust increases in many populations (Daley et al., 2003; Flynn, 2007). So suppose that there were a well-validated IQ test that showed measurement invariant scores between westerners and Africans. Even then, lower IQs of Africans still would not support Lynn and Vanhanen's (2002, 2006) assertion that countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorly developed economically because of their low "national IQ". Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010b) found that "national IQs" are rather strongly confounded with the developmental status of countries. Given the well-documented Flynn Effect, we know that "national IQs" are subject to change. An average IQ around 80 among Africans may appear to be low, but from a historical perspective this average is not low at all. A representative sample of British adults, who took the SPM in 1948 would have an average IQ of 81 in terms of the British norms of 1992 (J. C. Raven, 1960; J. C. Raven et al., 1996). Using older British norms, the average IQ of Africans would be much closer to 100. This is evident in Figure 2, where we compared SPM scores of Africans to older norms. In this figure, the average IQ of several African samples is near or above 100.
Present-day sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world and the home to some of the world's most deprived children. The majority of sub-Saharan children are chronically malnourished, not only from lack of food but particularly from food lacking vital elements related to both physical growth and intellectual development. It has been estimated that up to 70 percent of rural children live in absolute poverty and 90 percent suffer severe deprivation (Gordon, Nancy, Pantazis, Pemberton, & Townsend, 2003). A substantial number of sub-Saharan African children are under-educated. According to Garcia, Gillian, and Dunkelberg (2008), only about 12 percent of sub-Sahara African children have attended preschool, and this generally for well less than a year. They note that children who do not attend or have only minimal experience in pre-primary school tend to do less well in primary school than children who have had that experience. Further, it is important that the preschool experience be successful. For example, Jaramillo and Mingat (2008) have shown that children who have a poor experience in preschool and have to repeat a year or part of a year have a high drop-out rate in primary school (r = -0.875). The probability of preschool without repetition and who complete primary school is low but positive (r = 0.209). With or without preschool experience, approximately only fifty-five percent of 10-14 year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa complete primary school.
FLYNN ADMITS THAT RISES IN IQ SCORES DO NOT CORRESPOND TO AN INCREASE IN GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THIS WAS PROVEN IN THE STUDY I LINKED ABOVE DUMBSHIT. FYNN EFFECT DOES NOT MEAN GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.
they literally are not. Not inless you knly count the cream of the crop immigrants. See pic in
After World War II,many American GI's fathered children by German women;these children were raised in Germany.The children fathered by black GI's had an average IQ of 96.5,and the children fathered by white GI's had an average IQ of 97, a statistically insignificant difference. J.R. Flynn, Race, IQ and Jensen, pp. 87-88. J.R. Flynn, Race, IQ and Jensen, pp. 110-111. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01066706 link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00273154
Bentley Martin
Except Rushton was refuted in the evidence I provided.
Not to mention, interbreeding increases height and intelligence.
And furthermore, I provided evidence of increasing black IQ
We can argue about this all night, stormfag but the fact is, race realism doesn't hold up to scrutiny by todays scientific standards.
And considering that black kids are doing better than white kids (which I have provided) and Rushton has been refuted, we're not going to get anywhere.
I've got better shit to do
Carson Green
false. they perform lower see
Yoir image in cherry picked top of cream nigerian immigrants. not representative of all blacks in the uk
Anyway like I said, no point, you'd call me a cuck, you'd deny evidence, provide more sources which have been debunked, and you'll still sperg out on leftypol.
Josiah Rodriguez
Let's review.
The flynn effect does NOT occur on g. Nlacks are NOT SEEING INCREASES IN GENERAL INTELLIGENCE SEE
There is greater variation (fst) within chimpanzees than between chimpanzees and humans.
Does that mean we are the same species? NO. SMALL DIFFERENCES IN FST CAN HAVE A MASSIVE EFFECT
Joshua Flores
...
Jason Thompson
TO THIS DAY THERE IS NO COUNTRY WHERE THERE ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT BLACK AND WHITE IQ GAP. IT EXISTS IN EVERY COUNTRY AND THE GAP GETS WIDER AS YOU GET OLDER
Jose Morgan
Because the vast majority of them are highly educated and the richestbthusbthey can immigrate to the US.
It is NOT representative of the average nigerian population
Nicholas Hill
holy shit how many times dk I have to repeat that this does not occur on the g factor
read about the g factor
Parker White
Not an arguement
Although the implications of our psychometric findings for the potential of the Flynn Effect in sub-Saharan Africa remain unclear, the Raven's tests and other IQ tests have shown robust increases in many populations (Daley et al., 2003; Flynn, 2007). So suppose that there were a well-validated IQ test that showed measurement invariant scores between westerners and Africans. Even then, lower IQs of Africans still would not support Lynn and Vanhanen's (2002, 2006) assertion that countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorly developed economically because of their low "national IQ". Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010b) found that "national IQs" are rather strongly confounded with the developmental status of countries. Given the well-documented Flynn Effect, we know that "national IQs" are subject to change. An average IQ around 80 among Africans may appear to be low, but from a historical perspective this average is not low at all. A representative sample of British adults, who took the SPM in 1948 would have an average IQ of 81 in terms of the British norms of 1992 (J. C. Raven, 1960; J. C. Raven et al., 1996). Using older British norms, the average IQ of Africans would be much closer to 100. This is evident in Figure 2, where we compared SPM scores of Africans to older norms. In this figure, the average IQ of several African samples is near or above 100.
Mackintosh (2011), pp. 338–39 acknowledges that Jensen and Rushton have shown a modest correlation between g-loading, heritability, and the test score gap, but he does not accept that this demonstrates a genetic origin of the gap. He points out that it is exactly in those the tests that Rushton and Jensen consider to have the highest g-loading and heritability such as the Wechsler that has seen the highest increases due to the Flynn effect. This suggests that they are also the most sensitive to environmental changes. And in turn if the highly g-loaded tests are both more liable to environmental influences and as Jensen argues the ones where the black-white gap is most pronounced, it suggests in fact contrary to Jensen's argument that the gap is most likely caused by environmental factors. Mackintosh also argues that Spearman's hypothesis, which he considers to be likely to be correct, simply shows that the test score gap is based on whatever cognitive faculty is central to intelligence - but not what this factor is. Nisbett et al. (2012), p. 146 make the same point, noting also that the increase in the IQ scores of Black test takers is necessarily also an increase in g.
James Flynn (2012), pp. 140–1 argues that there is an inherent flaw in Jensen's argument that the correlation between g-loadings, test scores and heritability support a genetic cause of the gap. He points out that as the difficulty of a task increases a low performing group will naturally fall further behind, and heritability will therefore also naturally increase. The same holds for increases in performance which will first affect the least difficult tasks, but only gradually affect the most difficult ones. Flynn thus sees the correlation between in g-loading and the test score gap to offer no clue to the cause of the gap.
Hunt (2010), p. 415 states that many of conclusions of Jensen, and his colleagues rest on the validity of Spearman's hypothesis, and the method of correlated vectors used to test it. Hunt points out that other researchers have found this method of calculation to produce false positive results, and that other statistical methods should be used instead. According to Hunt, Jensen and Rushton's frequent claim that Spearman's hypothesis should be regarded as empirical fact does not hold, and that new studies based on better statistical methods would be required to confirm or reject the hypothesis that the correlation between g-loading, heritability and the IQ gap is due to IQ gaps consisting mostly of g.
So just to be clear, I've debunked you on saying that multiculturalism doesn't work, I've debunked you in saying that black kids have performed better than whites in Britain, and I've provided evidence of IQ gains, and the fact that wether you like it or not, we are one race, the human race.
Henceforth, race doesn't correlate with your behaviour or your intelligence
Cameron Brown
REMINDER THAT BLACK PERCENTAGE IS THE GREATEST LREDICTOR OF HOMICIDE RATES AFTER CONTROLLING FOR ALL SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
(2007) Witherspoon et. al., conclude that Lewontin's Fallacy that individuals within populations are more genetically unique than between populations is false when more than one genetic variable is used.
They show that Lewontin's Fallacy is based upon cherry-picked selection of specific single nucleotide polymorphisms common to all humans and upon selecting for as few as two single nucleotide polymorphisms the differences become readily apparent and classable. Genetic stratification as a result of this is inevitable without cherry-picking.
When comparing populations at an individual locus they can be shown to be similar and possibly overlapping - when scientists analyze populations over many thousands of loci they never overlap
I'll get home and destroy you some more
Ayden Cruz
Fuck no, they're not. Any nigger-run city, town, state, or country has been nothing but a shithole.
That alone is plenty of evidence that they are subhuman.
Another way to tell is to have someone walk through a poor white neighborhood with any slogan on your shirt/hat you want, and then do the same with "I hate niggers" in a poor black neighborhood.
No reason to get into all these studies. Just do a Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo through the hood and see how far you get.
Joshua Peterson
so many shitty articles linked in this thread
Austin Sullivan
Are you fucking dumb? The srudy controlled for EVERY SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLE POSSIBLE. EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR THOSE FACTORS BLACKS REMAINED THE BEST PREDICTOR
except your mods keep deletibg and banning
Angel Hernandez
are not increases in general intelligence*
Brayden Edwards
Why is OP's chit chat with a retard any concern of ours? None of this is up for debate with us. You're preaching to the choir.
You want to waste your time? Waste your time. You're a petty shit with a demented ego to bring your banned stuff here and to think you're going to convince some lemming of anything.
When you wrote; You didn't think to stop and ask yourself, WTF AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE?
You'd be better off discussing fried chicken receipes with a coon.
Legal scholar Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. (…) Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology (…). To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically."
poverty and merton fail to explain some thing about delinquency. Katz builds his argument well and by the end has you asking the same questions about why a theory that doesn't work is being pushed.
This is a serious scholarly work with a shit ton of foot notes. The idea of being "bad" and the fact that those who are pursuing the project of being a "bad nigger" prey on those around them who happen to be black is a major issue not considered by policy makers and new reporters.
I am heavily paraphrasing but check out the book. I got it to work on a film script have the book basically ruined any illusion of realism about the script.
It will ruin most crime movies for you. Micheal Mann would read it and nod, mmmhmmm.
Henry Gray
Its for the lurkers
Hudson Allen
And in regards to Witherspoon
Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. […] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[21] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
Aaron Hill
He should have done that when he clicked on Holla Forums. That board was made for people to avoid intelligence and to stay ignorant, discussing everything in a safe bubble where only their opinion could be discussed in an echo chamber.
Will do. You're probably one of the few Holla Forumsacks who actually provide legitimate evidence as opposed to this sperg I'm arguing with.
Lincoln Murphy
parental figures guide the criminals into crime and a desire for a "fast" life.
consider Henry Hill from Goodfellas. again just using comparisons from the book.
Jace White
contrllled for in the study
controlled for in the study
controlled for in the study
I encourage you to read the study. They controlled for a shitton of socioeconomic variables and yet black percentage was still the greatest predictor
Noah Torres
Reminds me of 4chon. I miss those days. Holla Forums is so unbearably cucked in so many ways as this thread is showing.
Anyway OP, I think this sums it up best
Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
Sebastian Edwards
There were gains across all races the gains are meaningless as the do not correspond to a greater increase in general intelligence aka g-factor dipshit.
Caleb Stewart
I'll tell you a secret: I don't think most humans are very rational, even the highly rational cream of the crop.
I'm not going to say nobody has ever changed their minds after arguing, but it seems to me that arguing or debating inherently cannot directly change minds. This is because of the fact that arguing with someone is almost always perceived as an attack on their ego, and it is not within human nature to endure an attack on the ego without fighting back.
When you "argue" with someone and they don't perceive an attack on their ego, well actually this is just explaining. This is how teachers spoonfeed knowledge to students, by presenting knowledge without threatening egos. If a teacher ever presented knowledge and threatened egos at the same time, and you still believed what was presented, you most likely already believed it, so it was actually good for your ego.
It is possible for someone to think and examine things without their egos in mind, but these people are rarer than you might imagine. In practice there are only three ways a mind changes: 1.) Present information while ego defenses are down and without triggering the defenses. 2.) The mind changes itself. 3.) Argue like hell for a while with really good arguments and just stop like you're a smart gambler who wants to keep what he's won.
1 is almost always what you want and is the only true way to change a mind from the outside. 3 is like a loophole and doesn't work directly, and when it very rarely works, it works by the same method as 2. This is because later on some people may reflect on a debate at a later time when their ego defenses are down and change their minds on their own.
Gavin Kelly
And yet OP has rejected the evidence which debunks this, along with evidence stating that blacks, wether you like them or not, are human, and their race doesn't define their behaviour or intelligence.
See
Henry Wright
I'm not really a pol user, more b but since b has really been sucking and pol has the habbenings I hang out here.
I find I can't discuss things that get too close to racial taboos even though the black people I know will express the same beliefs. There is a culture problem and an expectation problem. I don't think it is a genetic thing, I hope it isn't.
I think the book I posted may explain some of that disparity in the last three chapters but it is a motherfucker. If government doesn't fix this problem it is taking money from people it is not serving. Sales tax on poison.
when you say leftist what school are you talking about? Philosophers like Derrida and Lacan or are you using that word to mean people who are on the left that consider themselves thinkers?
Landon Gomez
I already told you why this is irrelevant retard. It is true but that small difference in fst between populations has a massive impact.
The same thing with chimpanzees. If you look within chimp there is greater variation within them than between humans.
If we took lewontins fallacy literally There is no difference between chimpanzees and humans.
Nathan Ross
Women are humans and their gender does not define their behavior or other attributes.
You can't say for certain that a women will be below the average size of males, therefore to say that women in general are shorter than men is wrong.
Jace Cox
debate is a contest between two ideas or opposing viewpoints so that in that battle the two actors with explore the ideas for the audience motivated by their desire to win.
It is a contest which is why moves that don't address the actual argument are discouraged. Logical fallacies don't win arguments, superior reasoning does. and maybe no one sees it then but looking back at old debates the winner is clear.
THE RISE IN IQ SCORES DO NOT REFLECT GAINS IN GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
Juan Sullivan
I'm done for good. If OP wants to act like the faggot he is and reject evidence, he can go for it. Especially since I BTFO him in regards to witherspoon, which he argued in favour for.
And I have provided evidence stating that those small differences don't account for IQ or for success among the races, especially when Botswana has an increasing HDI and economy.
As are white countries, especially Slavic terrirtories
And again, Rushton has been refuted.
uh huh
Jeremiah Fisher
JAMES FLYNN STATES THAT THE RISE IN OUR IQ SCORES DOES NOT REFLECT AN INCREASE IN GENERAL INTELLIGENCE,
Lucas Nguyen
There are men who apply make up so we can't just generalize and assume that applying makeup is typical for women.
There are women who are higher then men and men who are smaller than the average height of women.
Therefore we can't assume and generalize that women are born smaller than men.
Their gender has nothing to do with their behavior or physical attributes.
They are after all human and to say that humans are born differently is terribly sexist and I strongly believe that to say they are human is in any way or form an argument and that to assume that humans are born differently in any way or form is to say that some are not human.
I'm a retard.
Easton Thompson
You do nothing but link me to a wiki, and somehow that's a refutation? You really have no leg to stand on here, do you?
No I didn't you fucking idiot. I keep telling you and providing studies that prove the gains do not reflect an increase in general intelligence aka g factor
Adam Fisher
damn this is just a review.
Joseph Walker
So fucking what? Slavic countries have much more genetic admixture than ethnic britons for example.
and again. Botswana scores way lower than any white country.
Your argument is basically:
Botswana is still a pile of shit compared to ANY white country.
Camden Gomez
on self-reported ancestry, skin color, and blood groups) as “direct evidence” for the “nil” heritability of Black–White differences. He claimed these outweighed those we had presented (in Rushton & Jensen, 2005, Sections 7 and 8). It should be noted that Nisbett’s studies are peculiarly old, the mean year of publication being 1960 (median year 1966; range 1930 to 1977). Most are actually very weak and nondecisive, not having been replicated even once. Some are so old and recycled that Jensen (1973; see also 1998, pp. 478 – 483, 612) dealt with them 30 years ago! The blood-group studies could be repeated with better sampling and methods of analysis, but probably never will be because a more powerful tool, DNA analysis, is now available for this purpose. In Section 8, we discussed the DNA methods that can ascertain degree of White ancestry in Black populations.
divergent the African ancestry. They have been recommended for evaluating 330 RUSHTON AND JENSEN admixture in genetic studies of disease (Collins-Schramm et al., 2002), and we recommend them for genetic studies of IQ. More generally, we do not share Nisbett’s contention that “direct” evidence is more relevant than “indirect” evidence unless, of course, the quality, quantity, and consistency of the direct evidence are also stronger than the indirect evidence.
based on what Nisbett would call indirect evidence. The hereditarian model of an 80% genetic–20% environmental weighting for the Black–White IQ difference is based on the hypothetico-deductive method (Sections 2 and 14), not a patchwork of narrow, often inconsistent or unreplicated facts. Our “indirect” evidence includes the fact that (a) the gene– environment architectural matrix is the same for both races (Section 5); (b) inbreeding scores from Japan predict mean Black–White differences in the United States (Section 5); (c) regression to the mean operates consistently in both races (Section 9); (d) psychometric g is one and the same factor in both Whites and Blacks (Section 4); and (e) race differences are greatest on the g factor extracted from both IQ tests and reaction time tasks (Section 4).
on backward than on forward digit span memory, or on the more complex rather than simple reaction time measures— exactly as predicted by Spearman’s (1927) hypothesis? How do they explain the fact that Black students from families with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000 score considerably lower on the SAT than White students from families with $20,000 to $30,000 incomes? How do they explain why social class factors, all taken together, only cut the Black–White achievement gap by a third? Culture-only theory cannot predict these facts; often its predictions are opposite to the empirical results.
Adam Cooper
REMINDER THAT GOULD IS A FRAUD AND THERE ARE SKULL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RACES
Not to mention it's ranked 106th in the world. In regards to the thousands of countries, that's pretty damn significant.
okey doke.
In regards to the IQ gap the question becomes whether racial groups can be shown to be influenced by different environmental factors that may account for the observed differences between them. Jensen originally argued that given the high heritability of IQ the only way that the IQ gap could be explained as caused by the environment would be if it could be shown that all blacks were subject to a single "x-factor" which affected no white populations while affecting all black populations equally, as covered by Jensen (1998)
Jensen considered the existence of such an x-factor to be extremely improbable, but Flynn's discovery of the Flynn effect showed that in spite of high heritability environmental factors could cause considerable disparities in IQ between generations of the same population, showing that the existence of such an x-factor was not only possible but real, (Flynn 2012)
Today researchers such as Hunt (2010), Nisbett (2012) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that rather than a single factor accounting for the entire gap, probably many different environmental factors differ systematically between the environments of White and Black people converge to create part of the gap and perhaps all of it. They argue that it does not make sense to talk about a single universal heritability figure for IQ, rather, they state, heritability of IQ varies between and within groups. They point specifically to studies showing a higher heritability of test scores in White and medium-high SES families, but considerably lower heritability for Black and low-SES families. This they interpret to mean that children who grow up with limited resources do not get to develop their full genetic potential.
Doing better than Asian, Mexican and south American countries.
Again, as I said. People go to Holla Forums to stay ignorant and to avoid all dissenting opinions. Never go there. Never interact with them. Any post you make on Holla Forums is power you give to people who want everyone to be stupid and ignorant.
Jose Martinez
None of which are white you fucking tard.
Do you think Botswana is representative of all of Africa you fucking moronic anarchist scum?
Austin Howard
Then why are they going better than white kids in britain?
That post has NOTHING to do with what I said you fucking inbred anarchkiddie..
How many times do I have to tell you that rising iq scores as a result of the Flynn Effect do not mean greater general intelligence?
Jaxson Hall
No they are not.
Your graph is looking at the cream of the crop black immigrants you fucking idiot.
My graph is looking at BLACK IMMIGRANTS AS A WHOLE IN THE UK. AND THEY SCORE WAY LOWER THAN WHITES
Aiden Wilson
And why is it that you're willing to reject evidence, chuck insults and sperg out, when I debunked the Minnesota test, as well as providing evidence that Black kids in Britain are going well in school?
You seem shocked, user
Liam Rodriguez
from the UNZ article
If these black immigrants really have a representative mean IQ from a normal distribution that is lower than the black mean in 30 whole states, there is no way they would dominate the native black Americans so conspicuously and predictably in all academically elite institutions. The black Caribbean immigrant IQ of 83 (assuming it is represented under “Central America/Carribean”), which is lower than Alabama’s black IQ, is even more implausible in the context of their well-noted achievements. Correcting the different states’ black IQ by subtracting 5 IQ points from each state would still not fix the problem of plausibility: if there is even one state with blacks that are definitely smarter than (or just equal to) the black immigrants, it would be the children of the blacks from that state who would be conspicuously over-represented in those elite programs. There certainly would be no Caribbean names there.
The only plausible way to possibly salvage Richwine’s data is to accept that there are such large variations mediated by highly variable environmental factors (rather than restrictive genetic factors) within the African (or Caribbean) immigrant group that their mean IQ is totally inappropriate to use for estimating social expectations for every black immigrant group within the United States. As the UK data below shows, it is very unlikely that children of immigrants from the Igbo or Yoruba groups of Nigeria or the Ashanti group of Ghana, for example, have an average IQ below the white mean IQ.
The most definitive proof of Africans’ grossly underestimated genotypic IQ (80 according to Lynn, or 70 according to Jensen and Rushton, et al) has come in recent years from the performance of African school children in the UK. These results sparked instant reactions in the IQ debate world as soon as they started being reported by the news media, with some strong hereditarians suddenly becoming some kind of neo-environmentalists just to explain why white school children were not showing the kind of academic superiority over blacks that they have become accustomed to in the United States (wrong tests, declining white culture, an alleged war on whites, etc – the same kinds of reasons they always dismissed from liberal environmentalists explaining black underachievement in the US). The first report that caused some consternation in the IQ blogosphere indicated that black African pupils were apparently catching up with British white pupils on their GCSE tests and that in fact, they had already overtaken them at the lower end: the poor black kids were now performing better than poor white kids.
Justin Diaz
cont
As the table above shows, some African nationalities, particularly Ghanaians and Nigerians, score way above the England mean (and the white British mean), while others, like the Somalis and Congolese, score way below (but still not as low as the Portuguese immigrants, apparently). The low scoring African groups are the ones that migrated as refugees and/or could not speak English, besides being very poor. Improvements among the Somalians have been impressive, especially due to programs dedicated to teaching them English.
Jacob Sanders
You didn't debunk the minnesota test you fucking moron.
I fucking knew it. You couldn't even wait to sperg out before posting someone from "pumpkin person"
Samuel Martin
Small sample studies of very young children reared in enriched environments sometimes find an absence of the usual race differences in IQ. In two studies of 2- to 5-year-olds raised in English residential nurseries, Tizard (1974) compared Black (African and West Indian), White, and mixed-parentage children and found no significant differences among the three groups on several language comprehension tests and on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI); the single significant difference was in favor of the non-White children. Moore (1986) found that at age 7, 23 Black children adopted by middle-class White families had a mean IQ of 117, whereas a similar group of children adopted by middle-class Black families had a mean IQ of 104, both significantly above the national Black mean of 85. To be more informative, future studies need to be supplemented by follow-up testing, as in the Minnesota Study. Behavior genetic studies consistently show that, as people age, their genes exert ever more influence, whereas family socialization effects decrease (see Figure 3). Trait differences not apparent early in life begin to appear at puberty and are completely apparent by age 17. Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 years RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY 259 of age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition. In the second study, Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 112. A study by Frydman and Lynn (1989) examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium. At about 10 years of age, their mean IQ was 119, the verbal IQ was 111, and the performance IQ was 124. Even correcting the Belgian norms upward to 109 to account for the increase in IQ scores over time (about 3 IQ points a decade; see Section 13), the Korean children still had a statistically significant 10-point advantage in mean IQ over indigenous Belgian children. Neither the social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child’s IQ.>>8213125
Blake Long
Read the sources again, m8
Matthew Edwards
I did you idiot.
Again those Nigerians are the cream of the crop.
They are not the average Nigerian.
If the UK imported a shitton of average nigerians they would score lower.
We already looked at black immigrants in the UK as whole in this pic
They score lower than whites
Jacob Thomas
No because it was replicated many times. See>>8213188
hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 years RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY 259 of age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition. In the second study, Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age.
POOR AS FUCK MALNOURISHED EAST ASIANS ADOPTED BY WHITES SCORED WAY HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL US AVERAGE
Brandon Robinson
Thus the minnesota study is replicated.
The Tizard study sample size was extremely small and could not be replicated.
The Eyferth study, 25% of the "blacks" were algerians and such, and further more the blacks were the cream of the crop
Luke Morgan
Black (African and West Indian), White, and mixed-parentage children and foundno significant differences among the three groups on several language comprehension tests and on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI); the single significant difference was in favor of the non-White children. Moore (1986) found that at age 7, 23 Black children adopted by middle-class White families had a mean IQ of 117, whereas a similar group of children adopted by middle-class Black families had a mean IQ of 104, both significantly above the national Black mean of 85. To be more informative, future studies need to be supplemented by follow-up testing, as in the Minnesota Study .Behavior genetic studies consistently show that, as people age, their genes exert ever more influence,whereas family socialization effects decrease (see Figure 3). Trait differencesnot apparent early in life begin to appear at puberty and are completely apparent by age 17.
So basically providing me with more evidence that they're not dumb as a race thanks!
You are dumb as fuck. This is why when you use a larger more representative sample you see differences. Nobody has replicated the Tizard study.
Chase Bailey
I like how you've said above in some posts about "not an argument," yet you've given no normative argument about how normative claims about economics (the link you've provided) somehow outweigh other claims (your non-argument "muh" greentext). This is what you are implying here, yet you haven't really backed it up with a fully fleshed out set of claims.
Carter Cox
What the fuck? I did not say it had anything to do with nigerians.
I did you fucking idiot.
Black immigrants to America tend to be extremely educated and wealthy. The are not representative of their average person in their country.
It's TALKING ABOUT ASIANS. The Asian children were malnourished. Not the blacks.
The malnourished asians still scored WAY higher than whites and the national average.
Ask yourself why. It was replicated in THREE studies.
Juan Morris
studies consistently show that, as people age, their genes exert ever more influence, whereas family socialization effects decrease (see Figure 3). Trait differences not apparent early in life begin to appear at puberty and are completely apparent by age 17.
INTO THE TRASH IT GOES
Alexander Rivera
boring
Evan Ross
kill yourself you bearded nu male hipster beta cuck
Zachary Lee
Why the fuck are you linking the UNZ article? It has nothing to do with the Eyferth study I am talking about dumbshit,
That last "debunk" is not an arguement. As you increase in IQ, the number of "black" people decreases in proportion. As you get into the hundreds the differences are significant.
Not that I trust the source, but your debunk is as dishonest as the original sources of the first two.
Zachary Torres
seems like the UNZ article actually supports the high class immigrant theory.
Aaron Jackson
in a society of animals you need owners, and you need an owner.
however some of us have knowledge of natural law and we don't need government, we are the children of freedom and the future.
once you don't have dark luciferianists and setenists ruling the world things will be different.
Zachary Edwards
So thanks for supporting my position. I never denied that environment plays a part. But genetics do as you get old anarchshit.
Logan Lewis
Wow what a fucking surprise!
Now compare the richest blacks to the richest whites fora valid comparison.
Christopher Bailey
He's probably arguing gish gallop style (posting link after link), so he doesn't actually read the full articles. Fairly obvious style of arguing, since his responses either consist of one liner non-arguments and snark, or posting large cut-and-pastes of articles he has collected off reddit to argue with those evil fascists.
This was obvious to me in his first post that I responded to where he makes the odd claim about economic values somehow outweighing other values without any sort of normative argument as to why that is. This sort of thing would be ripped up by moral philosophers and ethicists as a bad argument.
Robert Sanders
Inb4: Leftypol is just sad. The worst part is that if we were to leave then alone, they would just disband due to their 50 different ideologies.
Cameron Ward
I'm a burger, my roommates best friend is one of these 1st generation super Nigerians. Parents were catholic and he's pretty smart, one of the tallest black people I know. but he still acts like a nigger when he's upset
