The heading in the final table is reversed "Religious groups" should be first and "Ethnic groups" should be second.
The Asian samples are too small and probably non-representative of their population in the US. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from those numbers.
Which is saying there is correlation, but probably not 100%. Which is basically not saying much. Fair enough.
A few other things:
1) What about the polygenic scores? Same?
2) What do u think is going on with all the international competitions? Recently this year the teams from Chn, US, and Au placing 1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively were all ethnically Chinese. It isn’t just this year. And Chinese-Amer dominate Putnam Math, which is said to be the hardest US math comp. Could a +5 advantage in iq explain such a huge disproportionate outcome? Even though the ethnically Chinese of immigrant background are still competing w/ the tail-end of the native pop, which hypothetically would be drawing from a very large pool and have much more students who are just as smart and many who are even smarter than the immigrant Chn. And don’t say maybe there’s a little bit of selective immigration, or they’re more studious, or it’s the visual-spatial component b/c none of that makes sense. I’ve read elsewhere that their bio ceiling could actually be from 108–110.
3) What’s happening with the white & asian-indian mix that’s creating a jump to 111? Is it some kind of assortive pairing that’s going on btwn the two? I wrote another lengthier comment asking about this one. Maybe u could read that one?
Yes, that too. But for me - of the two kinds of willful ignorance - the narcissistic pursuit of bogus piety implied in Bellow's is even more truly corrupt than Sinclair's venal one.
Indian IQ varies a lot by caste, perhaps 2 standard deviations between Brahmins and Dalits - The caste composition of the Asian Indians Stand alone , Qty = 53, and Asian Indian + White, Qty = 44 ; does not mention anything about the caste of Indians in this sample
But wait, how did they control for parental SES? If SES is partly a reflection of the parents' own intelligence, which could also be genetic, then controlling for SES might actually be removing some genetic variance. That's the sociologist's fallacy they mentioned. So maybe the effect of genetics is even stronger than what the models show.
The heritability estimates for brain volume were really high, like around 76-79%, which is even higher than for intelligence itself (around 60-70%). If brain size is so heritable and differs between races, and since brain size is linked to intelligence, that does suggest a genetic component. But I wonder, does brain volume directly cause intelligence, or are they both influenced by some other genetic factors?
They also used polygenic scores, which predict intelligence better in Europeans than in other groups. That makes sense because the scores were developed using European populations, so they might not capture the same genetic variants in other groups. But even with that limitation, the scores still had some predictive power across all groups, which supports a genetic basis.
It seems that the strong correlation you are claiming (0.90) can easily be called into question with numerous flaws and larger data selections.
In his 2021 paper, Davide Piffer collected data on the cognitive ability /educational attainment polygenic scores of the people of South Asia and the Iranian Plateau, and I have looked at them.
The Baloch (an Iranian ethnic group), Kalash, and Sindhis (Pakistani ethnic groups) all had similar polygenic scores to Russians and French, while the phenotype of these ethnicities is inconsistent with their genotype. Of course, we can assume that their lower phenotype is solely due to their poor environment, but in this case, you would be forced to accept a widespread environmentalism.
Indians in America are not intelligent because they are only selective, but because they do not have a large genetic gap in intelligence with Europeans too.
What accounts for the jump in IQ of mixed white & asian-indian kids to 111? Is it that there is a greater degree of assortive mating btwn whites & asian-indians than with other mixed pairing types, where only the smartest of the already selectively intelligent immigrants from India are pairing with the smartest whites? If so, what accounts for this process as opposed to other mixed pairing groups (though this part of the question is probably beyond the scope of your knowledge domain and should be best answered by a sociologist)?
Also, how certain are we that India is 80–85? I would think that their avg ceiling is about 90, given my experience with them. How have the studies been done on India? Do u think malnutrition plays a factor? But then again, why would anyone administer IQ tests to persons who are malnourished. What would be the point? Clearly that would not be a representative sample. So maybe the studies done on India are accurate insofar as healthy people were tested, and India does have an 80–85 avg IQ.
It seems like you literally don't understand this stuff. Malnourishment might not be to the point of borderline starvation that would give off noticeable physical signs. Someone can be malnourished but not exhibit outward evidence for it. More importantly though, the study I linked to your other comment showed that during a childs early development, malnourishment will have the greatest negative impact on his future intellectual capacity, and this isn't limited to just intellect.
Ignorance of certain factors is on display in this study, ruining its conclusions. The statement about prenatal exposure to toxins is wrong, basically the all toxins in the mothers bloodstream the child will get exposed to. SES doesn't control for prenatal alcohol, american blacks have somewhat higher rates of reported alcohol use while pregnant according to one study, however blacks also have higher use of drugs than what they say they use compared to whites and are also more likely to distrust authorities, thus another study reported 7 times higher rate of FAS in blacks than whites. SES also doesn't control for the much higher pollution in urban versus rural areas. India is another example that can be used here, Indians raised in the US/UK/Canada tend to do better than all other groups except EA's on standardized tests, yet India only had an average IQ of 82 from Lynn's study. Why? The studies were from 80's and 70's when India had high rates of poverty. More recent studies have indicated India's IQ isn't much higher, but now India also has bad pollution.
India children doing better in US/UK/Canada is because of selective immigration. Though nowadays more of the dregs of India (middle class and below) are also now coming over.
So you're acting in clear bad faith/immoral or not too bright, you shouldn't form conclusions based off of one factor and completely ignore other input factors that I mentioned before above. You also provided no proof that Indians have more immigration selection than other immigrant groups they beat out in test scores like Western/Eastern European immigrants, North African/Middle Eastern Immigrants, and even SEA immigrants iirc. I've looked before I couldn't find any. Also, I saw one set of scores where foreign born Indians did quite worse on scores in Math compared to iirc Canadian born ones. This directly promotes the environmental theory I brought up. Also, India has high rates of intercousin marriage, as does Pakistan which a few studies seem to indicate increase rates of retardation and most likely lower iq also. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-022-01704-2
This seems like an open and shut case. Can we make any future predictions for the relationship between denominational affiliation and iq? Have dysgenic trends been more severe among the less religious groups?
Amerindian ancestry having a more negative slope than African ancestry would seem to count as evidence as Michael H. Hart's "Understanding Human History". He thought American Indians had higher IQ scores than African Americans because they were related to "Asian Mongoloids", but this would indicate it is instead because today they are mostly of European ancestry. He used that difference to argue against Jared Diamond on the importance of a continent having a north-south vs east-west axis, since the Americas and Africa all have the former. It does still seem to me that prior to European contact the Americas contained within them more complex civilizations than sub-Saharan Africa did at that time, but perhaps I'm more ignorant of the latter.
Hart's book used to be freely available for download, and I had a blog post linking to it, but the publisher disappeared from the internet so now it's just in the Internet Archive:
The caveat here is that the Amerindian ancestry in our studies were from Hispanics in the USA. This is not necessarily representative of the Amerindian ancestry that used to exist. Possible that the ancient Mayans were smarter. The Inuit seem smart, but never built much civilization because it's too cold.
You mentioned the Maya, but the Aztecs also built a rather complex civilization. I don't know if Mexican Amerindians seem to be less intelligent than others.
The heading in the final table is reversed "Religious groups" should be first and "Ethnic groups" should be second.
The Asian samples are too small and probably non-representative of their population in the US. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from those numbers.
Hence the weighting by sample size.
Even with the weighting, how accurate is it?
Sampling error in the means of the groups would cause the overall correlation to be _smaller_. The bias is against a value near 1.
Which is saying there is correlation, but probably not 100%. Which is basically not saying much. Fair enough.
A few other things:
1) What about the polygenic scores? Same?
2) What do u think is going on with all the international competitions? Recently this year the teams from Chn, US, and Au placing 1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively were all ethnically Chinese. It isn’t just this year. And Chinese-Amer dominate Putnam Math, which is said to be the hardest US math comp. Could a +5 advantage in iq explain such a huge disproportionate outcome? Even though the ethnically Chinese of immigrant background are still competing w/ the tail-end of the native pop, which hypothetically would be drawing from a very large pool and have much more students who are just as smart and many who are even smarter than the immigrant Chn. And don’t say maybe there’s a little bit of selective immigration, or they’re more studious, or it’s the visual-spatial component b/c none of that makes sense. I’ve read elsewhere that their bio ceiling could actually be from 108–110.
3) What’s happening with the white & asian-indian mix that’s creating a jump to 111? Is it some kind of assortive pairing that’s going on btwn the two? I wrote another lengthier comment asking about this one. Maybe u could read that one?
I appreciate your time, Emile.
"Egalitarian researchers need to put up new contrary results or give up."
Perhaps they need to, but I am confident that they will not.
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.” (Saul Bellow). https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.
Yes, that too. But for me - of the two kinds of willful ignorance - the narcissistic pursuit of bogus piety implied in Bellow's is even more truly corrupt than Sinclair's venal one.
Is there even any uncertainty anymore? Seems like for 20 years the "egalitarian researchers" have just been science denying activists.
Far more than 20 years. E.g. https://russellwarne.com/2020/05/11/forty-years-squandered-by-iq-environmentalists/ but Jensen commented on their lack of trying in 1973 (Educability and Group Differences).
Kevin will not be happy about this!
Indian IQ varies a lot by caste, perhaps 2 standard deviations between Brahmins and Dalits - The caste composition of the Asian Indians Stand alone , Qty = 53, and Asian Indian + White, Qty = 44 ; does not mention anything about the caste of Indians in this sample
No info, and in any case, too few Indians to do any subsetting.
《Caste differences in intelligence, education and earnings in India and Nepal are reviewed. The highest caste, Brahmin, had higher intelligence estimated at 4.7 IQ points, as well as higher education and earnings when compared with the lowest castes, known as Dalits, Sudas, or Scheduled Castes. © 2018 Ulster Institute for Social Research. All rights reserved.》
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328295452_Caste_Differences_in_Intelligence_Education_and_Earnings_in_India_and_Nepal_A_Review
Caste also massively effects the rates of extreme poverty in India, and malnourishment has been linked to lowering IQ: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811921001051#sec0006
From the above person’s comment:
“Caste differences in intelligence, education and earnings in India and Nepal are reviewed. The highest caste, Brahmin, had higher intelligence estimated at 4.7 IQ points, as well as higher education and earnings when compared with the lowest castes, known as Dalits, Sudas, or Scheduled Castes. © 2018 Ulster Institute for Social Research. All rights reserved.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328295452_Caste_Differences_in_Intelligence_Education_and_Earnings_in_India_and_Nepal_A_Review
India is the way it is — that is, a giant dysfunction — because it’s full of Indians.
Wonderful work. Please take my money.
Should there be a table after the sentence: "Here's the scary looking table:"?
Fixed
Let’s go
Have you seen this clip, Emil? Is he mistaken?
"General Intelligence Biological Regression to the mean does NOT exist - Michael A. Woodley of Menie"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyvJIkinic&t
Semantics
But wait, how did they control for parental SES? If SES is partly a reflection of the parents' own intelligence, which could also be genetic, then controlling for SES might actually be removing some genetic variance. That's the sociologist's fallacy they mentioned. So maybe the effect of genetics is even stronger than what the models show.
The heritability estimates for brain volume were really high, like around 76-79%, which is even higher than for intelligence itself (around 60-70%). If brain size is so heritable and differs between races, and since brain size is linked to intelligence, that does suggest a genetic component. But I wonder, does brain volume directly cause intelligence, or are they both influenced by some other genetic factors?
They also used polygenic scores, which predict intelligence better in Europeans than in other groups. That makes sense because the scores were developed using European populations, so they might not capture the same genetic variants in other groups. But even with that limitation, the scores still had some predictive power across all groups, which supports a genetic basis.
It seems that the strong correlation you are claiming (0.90) can easily be called into question with numerous flaws and larger data selections.
In his 2021 paper, Davide Piffer collected data on the cognitive ability /educational attainment polygenic scores of the people of South Asia and the Iranian Plateau, and I have looked at them.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351141309_Divergent_selection_on_height_and_cognitive_ability_evidence_from_Fst_and_polygenic_scores
The Baloch (an Iranian ethnic group), Kalash, and Sindhis (Pakistani ethnic groups) all had similar polygenic scores to Russians and French, while the phenotype of these ethnicities is inconsistent with their genotype. Of course, we can assume that their lower phenotype is solely due to their poor environment, but in this case, you would be forced to accept a widespread environmentalism.
Indians in America are not intelligent because they are only selective, but because they do not have a large genetic gap in intelligence with Europeans too.
Questions.
What accounts for the jump in IQ of mixed white & asian-indian kids to 111? Is it that there is a greater degree of assortive mating btwn whites & asian-indians than with other mixed pairing types, where only the smartest of the already selectively intelligent immigrants from India are pairing with the smartest whites? If so, what accounts for this process as opposed to other mixed pairing groups (though this part of the question is probably beyond the scope of your knowledge domain and should be best answered by a sociologist)?
Also, how certain are we that India is 80–85? I would think that their avg ceiling is about 90, given my experience with them. How have the studies been done on India? Do u think malnutrition plays a factor? But then again, why would anyone administer IQ tests to persons who are malnourished. What would be the point? Clearly that would not be a representative sample. So maybe the studies done on India are accurate insofar as healthy people were tested, and India does have an 80–85 avg IQ.
It seems like you literally don't understand this stuff. Malnourishment might not be to the point of borderline starvation that would give off noticeable physical signs. Someone can be malnourished but not exhibit outward evidence for it. More importantly though, the study I linked to your other comment showed that during a childs early development, malnourishment will have the greatest negative impact on his future intellectual capacity, and this isn't limited to just intellect.
Ignorance of certain factors is on display in this study, ruining its conclusions. The statement about prenatal exposure to toxins is wrong, basically the all toxins in the mothers bloodstream the child will get exposed to. SES doesn't control for prenatal alcohol, american blacks have somewhat higher rates of reported alcohol use while pregnant according to one study, however blacks also have higher use of drugs than what they say they use compared to whites and are also more likely to distrust authorities, thus another study reported 7 times higher rate of FAS in blacks than whites. SES also doesn't control for the much higher pollution in urban versus rural areas. India is another example that can be used here, Indians raised in the US/UK/Canada tend to do better than all other groups except EA's on standardized tests, yet India only had an average IQ of 82 from Lynn's study. Why? The studies were from 80's and 70's when India had high rates of poverty. More recent studies have indicated India's IQ isn't much higher, but now India also has bad pollution.
India children doing better in US/UK/Canada is because of selective immigration. Though nowadays more of the dregs of India (middle class and below) are also now coming over.
So you're acting in clear bad faith/immoral or not too bright, you shouldn't form conclusions based off of one factor and completely ignore other input factors that I mentioned before above. You also provided no proof that Indians have more immigration selection than other immigrant groups they beat out in test scores like Western/Eastern European immigrants, North African/Middle Eastern Immigrants, and even SEA immigrants iirc. I've looked before I couldn't find any. Also, I saw one set of scores where foreign born Indians did quite worse on scores in Math compared to iirc Canadian born ones. This directly promotes the environmental theory I brought up. Also, India has high rates of intercousin marriage, as does Pakistan which a few studies seem to indicate increase rates of retardation and most likely lower iq also. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-022-01704-2
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Natur.266..440B/abstract
http://imed.pub/ojs/index.php/iam/article/download/1246/942/4139
This seems like an open and shut case. Can we make any future predictions for the relationship between denominational affiliation and iq? Have dysgenic trends been more severe among the less religious groups?
Brilliant post. Can you recommend any books about statistical/data analysis?
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/self-teaching-stats-in-2020
Amerindian ancestry having a more negative slope than African ancestry would seem to count as evidence as Michael H. Hart's "Understanding Human History". He thought American Indians had higher IQ scores than African Americans because they were related to "Asian Mongoloids", but this would indicate it is instead because today they are mostly of European ancestry. He used that difference to argue against Jared Diamond on the importance of a continent having a north-south vs east-west axis, since the Americas and Africa all have the former. It does still seem to me that prior to European contact the Americas contained within them more complex civilizations than sub-Saharan Africa did at that time, but perhaps I'm more ignorant of the latter.
Hart's book used to be freely available for download, and I had a blog post linking to it, but the publisher disappeared from the internet so now it's just in the Internet Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091229023334/http://www.wspublishers.com/uhh.pdf
Libgen is your friend. http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=michael+hart+understanding+human+history&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
The caveat here is that the Amerindian ancestry in our studies were from Hispanics in the USA. This is not necessarily representative of the Amerindian ancestry that used to exist. Possible that the ancient Mayans were smarter. The Inuit seem smart, but never built much civilization because it's too cold.
You mentioned the Maya, but the Aztecs also built a rather complex civilization. I don't know if Mexican Amerindians seem to be less intelligent than others.