21 Comments
May 26, 2023Liked by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Major sources of US immigration, such as India and China, are missing from the US census table and the resulting regression. Nearly all of Asia is missing, actually. Seems like enough to possibly effect the results.

Expand full comment
author

Good point. Yeah, they were in a separate table on Wikipedia, as apparently they distinguish between ancestry and race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income#By_detailed_races

Expand full comment

"Why is Latvia so high?"

I would think that a large share of Latvian Americans may be Jewish. There were about 200,000 Jews in Latvia in 1914, and almost all of them either emigrated or died in the Holocaust. There are 80,000 or so Latvian Americans today.

Expand full comment

While I do not have enough expertise on the last 3 points to adequately respond to them, I know enough to critique the first one. I read Sowell’s study that researched West Indians in comparison to African Americans. The data was from 1969 of the public census, he wrote this in the 70s (he is very old). He found that nationally (I rounded) the median household income for African Americans was 5900, West Indians were 9000 and the national average was 9500.

He then isolated them to the same geographic area (nyc metro area) and found African Americans had 6900 and West Indians had 8800, he held about everything constant such as education, age, children etc, all of which were quite comparable. Most West Indians at the time were concentrated (over 50%) in nyc alone and therefore it would be a good geographic place to compare. 8800 median income was comparable to other groups that are located in the nyc metro area such as Italian Americans who also had an income of 8800 nationally.

Sowell wanted to test whether West Indians made more than African Americans because they were favored more as hard working and as immigrants with better education, so he isolated the census to second generation West Indians who would seem imperceptible as anything other than a black, assimilated New Yorker most of whom with the exception of the newly arrived black southerners spoke in a New York dialect. The second generation West Indies with only 1 year more of schooling had a median income of 10900, surpassing African Americans, their parents, the national average and the average of the northeast (10700), which is why Friedman said in one generation they caught up to the rest of the nation, in truth they surpassed even the average of the richest region of the USA. They surpassed whites and other ethnic groups with which they were similar and sowell maintains neither genetics nor discrimination could explain that since they are darker skinned and have more African genes.

But the author does bring up a good point, why doesn’t it seem like this pattern holds today? Things changed dramatically since then. 1. West Indians after 1970 started relocating more to the south which was perceived as more family friendly and like them religiously devout, this would depress the groups median wages overall. 2. Prior to 1970 as sowell writes about, close to 90 percent of a West Indian’s friend groups and about 90 percent of the time their marriage partner was also a West Indian. In other words they usually hung around and associated with their own ethnic group and not American blacks. After social desegregation took place throughout America and all ethnic groups started interacting more, the movements of the 1960s and 1970s encouraged certain social pathologies (illegitimacy, anti intellectualism, “acting white”, hooliganism and violence) once confined to southern whites and blacks to seep into the American black and then West Indian youth and because West Indian youth became imperceptible both by look and culture, they were pressured to conform to these social pathologies, all of which would lead to lower median incomes and stunt upward mobility. Sowell writes about this in Black Rednecks and White Liberals. There is this great study from Harvard in 1994 highlighting West Indians and their transition from an immigrant group into part of the American black mainstream. In it the West Indian parents are worried about their children becoming more like and adopting customs of American blacks including aspects of what they called “ghetto culture”.

That is my two cents on this. I encourage the author to read this, read his original study American ethnic groups (1978) edited by Thomas sowell or Sowell’s Ethnic America (1981) and then see whether Friedman’s point refutes hereditarianism or not. Thank You.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

It's pretty depressing to see quality work like this put into a mode of discourse that can and will almost certainly be ignored by intellectual cowards like Friedman -- however courageous he is by comparison to the larger academic discourse that is upstream from the suicidal moral zeitgeist. This not to say all is vanity but the lessons of history, including most conspicuously "The Bell Curve" from decades ago, tell us this mode of discourse is not moving the needle nearly as fast as are the gene shredding institutions.

If each new contribution to the discourse were brought into a comprehensive macrosocial model with prior contributions, and all subject to an information criterion for model selection, it would not only force the cowards to stick their heads above the their parapets like "correlation doesn't imply causation", "ecological correlations are invalid", "you didn't discount for <fill in the blank> confouders", blah blah blah, but it would provide a model that might actually prove _practically_ useful for those of us deprived of power. The problem, of course, is not only the additional burden of applying an information criterion for casual model selection, but the large residual "argument surface" over which information criterion is applicable.

IMNSHO, that's why approximating algorithmic information is the right way to go, even though lossless compression of an increasing diversity of datasets -- required so as to include the data relied upon by the cowards -- into a unified executable archive would increase the efforts by perhaps an order of magnitude.

Expand full comment

I may at some point go over your argument carefully enough to rebut or agree, but the person you should be arguing the African stuff with is not me but Chisala. Have you corresponded with him? Interacted with him online?

As I am sure you know, it's pretty easy to make a convincing argument for a proposition, true or false, if you are reasonably intelligent and the people you are arguing with are not exposed to the other side. I generally prefer to form opinions on controversial issues, a subject I have discussed in two recent Substack posts, by looking at competent arguments from both sides.

Expand full comment

As regards Nigeria I suspect there is substructure i.e. elite subgroups within the population. There are more highly talented Nigerian mathematicians than I would expect if the population were homogenous. Might be similar effects when it comes to Scrabble.

Expand full comment

Yes. "Nigeria" is a social construct created by the British when abandoning their empire. I'd bet that the subgroup that you're looking for is the Igbo, from the southeast, who belong in any list including "Ashkenazi Jews" and "Han Chinese". They've made up a significant portion of the diaspora after failing to secede in what is now known as the "Nigerian Civil War". If you remember Biafra, that was them.

Expand full comment

Am I missing something in your criticism of the second point? The tables addressing the performance of Nigerians in the UK only show a black-white IQ gap. Doesn't the inclusion of non-Nigerian black Africans (like Somalis, Ugandans, Kenyans etc..) in those tables somewhat miss the point that Friedman was making? That inclusion can possibly bring down what would otherwise be a higher Nigerian IQ.

Expand full comment

"Iranians - what gives?" - a LOT of those Iranians are physicians.

Expand full comment

Video games which require up-to-date PC (unlike chess or scrabble) are actually bad argument because of poor availability in poorer countries.

Expand full comment
author

As you can see, it doesn't matter whether you look at intensive or not games.

Expand full comment

1) Where are the East Indians?

2) Is there research which takes into consideration the self-regulating competencies of the various nationalities/ethnicities in interaction with IQ?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28586087/

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2023·edited Jun 25, 2023

I just read your unpublished(on substack) blog post. I want to say this under relevant post. When it comes to the difference in intelligence between the races, you are very successful in defending hereditarianism. You're destroying the colorism and Scarr Rowe hypothesis. But when it comes to traditional values (family, religion, etc.), you are not enthusiastic about defending hereditarianism. This is interesting.

Expand full comment
May 28, 2023·edited May 28, 2023

I really don't understand why people read Chisala's article and come away with some conclusions. He basically just points to some data that are outliers and try to make an argument as if they're a representative population data.

There are population wide test scores like the SAT in the US involving millions of students. And states like Michigan where all students are required to take the exam (for free). Chisala has nothing to say about those studies. Instead he likes to write about Scrabble players and African immigrants in the UK? Really? Even the Nigerian immigrants themselves will tell you that they're not representative of their population. The Indian immigrants working in tech in California will all tell you that they're not like the average Indian person in India.

Expand full comment

Are you talking about evidence on Africans or African-Americans? As you would know if you had read Chisala, he thinks African-Americans have a significantly lower IQ than Africans and offers some guesses as to why.

Expand full comment

Lynn's measurement of Albanian IQ must clearly be wrong, since there is a huge discrepancy between the supposed IQ and their actual earnings in the US (which are in line with neighboring countries like Greece and Serbia).

Expand full comment

EK, what's your take on borderer/scots-irish/Appalachian stagnation in the US? Do you think that they are genetically different than other Britons? Or do you need to invoke some long-lagging state history?

Expand full comment
author

Don't you think this is mainly brain drain?

Expand full comment

They were already seen as particularly violent in 1600, before brain drain was a thing. Wiki : " The origins of the Scotch-Irish lie primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland and in northern England, particularly in the Border Country on either side of the Anglo-Scottish border, a region that had seen centuries of conflict.[39] In the near constant state of war between England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, the livelihood of the people on the borders was devastated by the contending armies. Even when the countries were not at war, tension remained high, and royal authority in one or the other kingdom was often weak. The uncertainty of existence led the people of the borders to seek security through a system of family ties, similar to the clan system in the Scottish Highlands. Known as the Border Reivers, these families relied on their own strength and cunning to survive, and a culture of cattle raiding and thievery developed.[40] ... James embarked in 1609 on a systematic plantation of English and Scottish Protestant settlers to Ireland's northern province of Ulster.[41] The Plantation of Ulster was seen as a way to relocate the Border Reiver families to Ireland to bring peace to the Anglo-Scottish border country, and also to provide fighting men who could suppress the native Irish in Ireland.[42][43] ... The term hillbilly has often been applied to their descendants in the mountains, carrying connotations of poverty, backwardness and violence.

Expand full comment

1) they probably have a low iq for whites, say 95.

2) lots of brain drain due to rural positioning

I have a bit of a soft spot for them. They’ve been on the right side of most everything in American history (independence, decentralization, pro union).

They are the truly unhyphenated Americans (listing the ancestry “American”).

Politically they mostly support pragmatic centrists (Eisenhower, bill Clinton). The West Virginian running our daycare refused to mask kids despite threats from the state.

They’ve contributed disproportionately to military service.

Yeah, they are uncouth, but they’ve never given me a problem. I used to live in between a black ghetto and a Scott’s Irish working class neighborhood in the city. The blacks caused crime in my neighborhoods and voted for corrupt mayors. The Scott’s Irish sometimes got in fist fights outside their bars but never gave me trouble. When gentrification came they gentrified the Scott’s Irish area because it was better then the black area.

Expand full comment