Makes me think the USA IQ measures have been falling over the years due to more immigrants being tested than before. Sheer number based on % of population
Around 20 years ago I did a masters degree in a quantitative discipline. Sub-120 IQ was failing, you really needed 130 IQ to excel.
Anyway there were a dozen or Indians in the programme who all coped with the coursework and most of them did very well. All of these students had been born and educated in India.
Why was this?
1) these people were 3-4 SD above the Indian IQ mean
2) the Indian distribution is flatter and has a fatter right tail?
3) both
I didn’t and don’t really understand the caste system, but all of these students had servants back home In India.
There is a tiny elite in India that are genetically distinct from the great mass (they literally haven’t breeded with the general population forever) and have been integrated into the British empire elite for some time.
People encounter this small group and think “there must be a ton of talent in India”. There isn’t. It’s a very shallow talent pool.
That’s why countries that went all in on Indian immigration like Canada saw the quality diminish rapidly.
Selection is your answer. It isn't random Indians that travel half way around the world to get into advanced degree programs in the US, but generally only the best and brightest. With 1.4 billion people there are a fair number of those to choose from.
You are just giving the conventional leftwing view here. You believe that it is all nurture, all the time. "If only we would provide adequate resources... if only we wouldn't judge by western standards... if only these race scientists weren't so xenophobic..." etc ad nauseam. Listen, I or Emil or others could give a rebuttal, but what's the point? You just need to read more on this topic and develop better arguments. It's exhausting going back to the 1970s again.
As an ethnic Indian born and raised in the UK, this is disappointing news! It makes me wonder what intelligence is, how we measure it, and what IQ results mean in practice.
One thing that strikes me is that, assuming you get roughly the same spread of scores in different groups, the Indian results are shifted almost 2 standard deviations to the left. This would mean almost half the population might qualify as having an intellectual disability (IQ<70).
In terms of daily functioning, this would have huge consequences in terms of the numbers of people who would likely need some level support with activities such as budgeting / planning / social interaction etc. A problem on this scale would be visible from space! That said, there is clearly something going on, because the IQ difference is so stark and also shows up in gaming ability.
However, although the headline implication might be to suggest a genetic difference, I suspect factors such as nutrition and culture (particularly during childhood) may be more important. This would also be consistent with the apparent observation that a nation's intelligence tends to be positively correlated with its level of development, as I believe is thought to have happened in Western countries (and perhaps also in the opposite direction in some former colonies).
I know you're an expert on these things Emil and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Infact , Saudi Arabia has spent nearly 8 % gdp on education for last 40 years . Students competing in PISA from poorest deprived 20 quintile in Japan score higher than Saudi multi millionaire kids .
Saudi Spends per capita 8 times than Jordan and score similar on PISA test .
Vietnam spends one fifth on student per capita as compared to Saudi Arabia and scores closer to UK .
Vietnam economy will beat Southeast Asian ones in fews years.
Malaysia is nearly apartheid state massively favouring malays in every sphere of life, even then Chinese rule the private sector and make money go round.
If you take evolution seriously , this willl be the most obvious rational outcome .
Hello Steve, I confess I haven't looked into this issue much before but I think your point is that higher educational spending has not resulted in better IQ performance (at least in Saudi), and that international differences in PISA scores are due to evolution?
The amount of money spent per pupil on education has not changed the outcome of education. We've known about this for at least 40+ years. The reason why most people don't know is that the media actively hides this "hate fact.".
If you really want to know, you should read Freddie Deboer for starters:
You can also look at Texas school district web sites. They're very transparent on the amount of money spent per pupil. School districts with poor Whites score higher than mostly Black middle class districts. Yes, there's more money spent on mostly Black districts to try to "equalize" things. It doesn't work. We've known about this for decades. The left doesn't like talking about it because this is prima facie evidence that genes matter and it matters a lot.
Hi David, I will look into FD’s post, thanks for linking. I don’t know if he looks into the culture aspect but I think the stats on education spending might reinforce the importance of culture, particularly at home. I think these is broad consensus that the home environment generally has a greater impact on kids than school?
I also think that if the bulk of the difference in these test scores was truly genetic then the difference in national development should somehow compound over generations and lead to an ever greater divide between ‘smart’ and ‘dumb’ nations.
But there was a time, coincidentally before the advent of mass international travel, when the West was not at the forefront, which I think somewhat deflates a purely genetic explanation for the changing fortunes of nations.
There has been tons of studies on "cultural" explanations as well. Most of the studies that show that environmental and cultural changes raise test score all suffer from fade out effects. Long term, it does not change the outcome.
As for compounding effects of genes, yes you're exactly right IF the people select partners and have children based mostly intelligence. But a country cannot control who its citizens marry right? And given the low fertility rate in most developed countries and increased low IQ immigration into developed countries, there are a lot of dysgenic effects at play.
If it’s true that certain interventions can raise scores, albeit temporarily, then that suggests something environmental and malleable is at play rather than something genetic and fixed. And if those effects fade over time, then that would be consistent with this view (assuming the environment eventually ‘relapses’ to its former state).
I think the impact of low fertility and inter-racial marriage have probably not had the time or the scale to significantly impact national averages ‘yet’ (unless there are indeed massive ethnic differences, in which case you would also have to question why normal IQ individuals are hooking up with obviously sub-normal partners).
1.4 billion people in a fairly small geography (~483 people per square mile compared to US ~93) but not a lot of light.
Those on the lower end of the IQ scale can do alright within a setting where there are family members to keep track of them and tell them what to do, and there are clear tasks and responsibilities, manual labor to do, etc. By Western standards they struggle, but by the standards of the third world they get by alright; no one is expecting them to do math or be able to read well. The bar is really low.
Yes people with sub-normal intelligence can of course be supported to live more independently, but if we ascribe their difficulties to genetics then that support is unlikely to come from family members.
I think acknowleding the truth is the first step towards reaching any reasonable solution or a step towards solution .
Here how the chain reaction likely works
Higher IQ ( cognitive ability ) - Sophisticated culture + high trust - Advance and sophisticated institutions - Better living Standards + art/ sophiticated movies with dense plot/ progressism + kantism + HIGH GDP PER CAPITA
Oil Money = low iq + no sophisticated art / culture / sophistication
India = low iq + Advance institution ( parliamentary democracy ) STILLL one of the lowest per capita income
Also , important to note that East Asian have the highest IQ but STILL China has lower per capita income than Mexico . European WEIRD ness and non clann ness makes it more innovative ,creative , individualistic and overall a high trust society which flourishes .
I'm not sure I understand the equations, but I think you're right to point to differences in culture. Given the history of the rise and fall of nations over the centuries, I think the causal relationship may be more in the direction of cultural factors promoting higher (or lower) population IQ rather than the other way around.
I think your mistake is in how you define "live more independently". They don't live independently in a Western sense; by our standards they would practically be wards of their parents/extended family, and be piteously poor. Yet even in the US people with very subnormal intelligence hold down jobs, menial jobs to be sure, but jobs. They rely on help and families, so are not "independent" but they can earn their keep.
Now take that and apply it to a society where the average person is really poor by US standards. Large numbers of people have menial jobs and rely heavily on their family and are poor. That isn't surprising; you'd expect them to be very poor, and they are.
As to family genetics, IQ is heritable, but that doesn't mean everyone in the family has very low IQ. The guy with 95 is the smart one in the family that everyone goes to for advice, and members with 80 tend to the day to day etc. You don't need a ton of intelligence to manage day to day at a sufficient level of performance to not die, and that person can keep an eye on a number of less intelligent family members.
Again, it seems crazy if one assumes India is very much like the US or Western countries in terms of technological advancement and wealth. It very much is not.
Can't say much about the IQ estimates from India proper but those seem like unusually low estimates for Indian Americans (and incongruent with academic achievement/income/etc) - this article suggested an IQ around 110 based on SAT score:
But ultimately this piece is extremely biased. It doesn’t account for inconsistencies in curriculums. IQ isn’t a fixed trait. It changes based on development so it makes sense that underdeveloped countries will have lower scores due to the access to education and the style of education. The test is developed to measure against a strong western education. So this is really just a conjured talking point with not enough substance to merit any truth. All it does (as designed) is encourage more animosity towards immigrants. It’s thinly veiled xenophobia.
You are just giving the conventional leftwing view here. You believe that it is all nurture, all the time. "If only we would provide adequate resources... if only we wouldn't judge by western standards... if only these race scientists weren't so xenophobic..." etc ad nauseam. Listen, I or Emil or others could give a rebuttal, but what's the point? You just need to read more on this topic and develop better arguments. It's exhausting going back to the 1970s again.
The arguments are unified by having consistent results.
To you, the counter arguments are unified by prejudice, but that’s a second order effect of the results being true. You can’t make everyone look at each other in a way that’s measurably false. American culture has been trying to do that for decades and it just keeps failing. We aren’t going along with this anymore.
Hello Azzy, intelligence tests are standardised for age (i.e. you wouldn't give a 12 year old the same test as an adult), though you're right that education does make a difference. I'm not sure if a truly pure intelligence test is even possible.
Steven Pinker (Harvard) wrote Blank Slate more than 20 years ago. Yet people are still clinging onto "cultural and environmental" explanations. This goes to show how the far left media and education system conspire to censor any genetic explanation for disparate human achievement.
And the far left all think of themselves as Great White Saviors of blacks and browns because they're the ones that will give them money and education and opportunities. Preferably by taxing Elon Musk out of existence of course.
Do you have any idea how much money the US and Australian governments have thrown at Blacks and Aboriginals to try to help them? Not to mention the billions in aid to Africa. They're a tax to society. They have jobs because of DEI but even with the DEI income they still manage to not create lasting wealth. Their children still have very low test score and continue to need affirmative action.
Must admit I haven’t read the book, though I believe Pinker himself was advocating for cultural and environmental explanations rather than a biological one for inter-group differences in test performance.
I did however read Steven Levitt’s Freakonomics 2 (or at least part of it), which as I recall devoted an uncomfortably large section to international differences in penis size (no pun intended), in which once again Indians did not exactly cover themselves with glory.
Pinker was never cancelled for a reason - same thing for Robert Plomin. They know how to walk the line without stepping over - focus on heredity of individuals and avoid the obvious group differences, lol.
I'd like to think (bias alert!) that it's possible Pinker was being genuine.
Genes are certainly significant, the strength of IQ heritability attests to that, but as far as I'm aware the idea that some groups are evolutionarily smarter doesn't track neatly with world history.
How come you used the North Korean defector samples when it’s well known that they’re mostly made up of upper class North Koreans? 102 isn’t representative at all and NKs (who, supposedly have an iq of 102) in SK tend to have higher drop out rates and lower prestige jobs
I’ve worked with droves of Indians over 15 years. I’ve ment one or two I liked. The rest did everything they could to annoy, network, waste time, smile to your face while diving a dagger into your back, etc. The “online right-winger” is anyone who has worked with multiple Indians for more than six months. I do not know a single American, Brit, German, Ozzy, Kiwi, Frog, etc. who doesn’t eventually become fatigued of the Indians they work with.
Indians have greatly improved their standing in chess. They have the current World Champion, 3 Indian players are right now in the world's top 10 and they have the second strongest national team with a very large pool of young GMs.
Good for the popularity of chess in India but pretty bad for the global popularity of chess as the western public cares about Magnus, Hikaru and even about Hans Niemann more than about the indian players.
Perhaps the Indian economy is the biggest loser in the rise of Indian chess. By raising the prestige of chess, including through subsidies, India is incentivizing talented youngsters to devote their energies to chess, rather than to other pursuits that would probably be both more lucrative, and more economically beneficial.
Not that that's likely to have an appreciable effect on a $4 Trillion economy, but that may be where the largest economic impact lies.
"Out of a population of ~1400 million, one can find many very bright people, even if the average is low."
This, along with the contribution of the caste system, plus selective immigration policy, explains the IQ difference between Indians in the United States and the national average in India.
Awhile back I ran some math assuming the Indian average was in the 70s and the Brahmin average was in the 90s (brahmins 5% of pop). I think I came up with the Indian >130 IQ numbers being substantial but still only like 10% of global white/Jewish numbers.
In order words you can fund some smart Indians, but not too many and not enough to change the world if you somehow mobilized their talent. If one were to totally write them off for cultural reasons (like the Chinese do) then it won't really matter.
And in reality everyone chain migrates and exploits loopholes so I expect any kind of mass immigrations of Indians, even under selective pressure, to inevitably tend towards 90s IQ at best.
Personally, I think the character of the IQ elite matters as much as its size. East Asians should be absolutely crushing us on a numbers basis, and yet their societies are all capping out at like 50% of our productivity
So if you combine the fact that there isn't some deep well of Indian talent out there with the fact that they seems particularly culturally toxic, I'd take a hard pass.
"Personally, I think the character of the IQ elite matters as much as its size."
Great point. Here are some human traits, other than intelligence, that contribute to the ascent of humanity—integrity, inquisitiveness, intuitiveness, industriousness, insight, inspiration, imagination, inventiveness, and intentness.
While high IQ people have an enhanced capability for long term planning and thus potential appreciation for complex positive sum cooperation that is lacking in brutes, it doesn't take much for the same raw talent to get re-directed to zero sum competition (whether actively harmful or simply pointless and wasteful goodharting).
In fact its all the more ugly because at least the brutes don't couple their selfishness with wretch inducing rationalization gymnastics.
Makes me think the USA IQ measures have been falling over the years due to more immigrants being tested than before. Sheer number based on % of population
obviously .
Road to Brazilisation.
Or it’s fallen less than it would.
Around 20 years ago I did a masters degree in a quantitative discipline. Sub-120 IQ was failing, you really needed 130 IQ to excel.
Anyway there were a dozen or Indians in the programme who all coped with the coursework and most of them did very well. All of these students had been born and educated in India.
Why was this?
1) these people were 3-4 SD above the Indian IQ mean
2) the Indian distribution is flatter and has a fatter right tail?
3) both
I didn’t and don’t really understand the caste system, but all of these students had servants back home In India.
There is a tiny elite in India that are genetically distinct from the great mass (they literally haven’t breeded with the general population forever) and have been integrated into the British empire elite for some time.
People encounter this small group and think “there must be a ton of talent in India”. There isn’t. It’s a very shallow talent pool.
That’s why countries that went all in on Indian immigration like Canada saw the quality diminish rapidly.
Selection is your answer. It isn't random Indians that travel half way around the world to get into advanced degree programs in the US, but generally only the best and brightest. With 1.4 billion people there are a fair number of those to choose from.
https://xcancel.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1921019806641185006#m
"I didn’t and don’t really understand the caste system, but all of these students had servants back home In India."
The caste system is a form of selective breeding. I believe it is similar to the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe.
How many Indians would have an IQ of above 130 then?
There is this attempt to estimate the number of Indian geniuses, and it is much smaller compared to the number of geniuses in the USA. https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1874239269126234404?t=NkPgi_-bxnMEtIYX98SQgQ&s=19
depends on the genetic variation within the population proportion of different populations and raw numbers
You are just giving the conventional leftwing view here. You believe that it is all nurture, all the time. "If only we would provide adequate resources... if only we wouldn't judge by western standards... if only these race scientists weren't so xenophobic..." etc ad nauseam. Listen, I or Emil or others could give a rebuttal, but what's the point? You just need to read more on this topic and develop better arguments. It's exhausting going back to the 1970s again.
As an ethnic Indian born and raised in the UK, this is disappointing news! It makes me wonder what intelligence is, how we measure it, and what IQ results mean in practice.
One thing that strikes me is that, assuming you get roughly the same spread of scores in different groups, the Indian results are shifted almost 2 standard deviations to the left. This would mean almost half the population might qualify as having an intellectual disability (IQ<70).
In terms of daily functioning, this would have huge consequences in terms of the numbers of people who would likely need some level support with activities such as budgeting / planning / social interaction etc. A problem on this scale would be visible from space! That said, there is clearly something going on, because the IQ difference is so stark and also shows up in gaming ability.
However, although the headline implication might be to suggest a genetic difference, I suspect factors such as nutrition and culture (particularly during childhood) may be more important. This would also be consistent with the apparent observation that a nation's intelligence tends to be positively correlated with its level of development, as I believe is thought to have happened in Western countries (and perhaps also in the opposite direction in some former colonies).
I know you're an expert on these things Emil and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Contra : Qatar , Saudi Arabia
Infact , Saudi Arabia has spent nearly 8 % gdp on education for last 40 years . Students competing in PISA from poorest deprived 20 quintile in Japan score higher than Saudi multi millionaire kids .
Saudi Spends per capita 8 times than Jordan and score similar on PISA test .
Vietnam spends one fifth on student per capita as compared to Saudi Arabia and scores closer to UK .
Vietnam economy will beat Southeast Asian ones in fews years.
Malaysia is nearly apartheid state massively favouring malays in every sphere of life, even then Chinese rule the private sector and make money go round.
If you take evolution seriously , this willl be the most obvious rational outcome .
Hello Steve, I confess I haven't looked into this issue much before but I think your point is that higher educational spending has not resulted in better IQ performance (at least in Saudi), and that international differences in PISA scores are due to evolution?
The amount of money spent per pupil on education has not changed the outcome of education. We've known about this for at least 40+ years. The reason why most people don't know is that the media actively hides this "hate fact.".
If you really want to know, you should read Freddie Deboer for starters:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/is-the-conventional-wisdom-on-educational
You can also look at Texas school district web sites. They're very transparent on the amount of money spent per pupil. School districts with poor Whites score higher than mostly Black middle class districts. Yes, there's more money spent on mostly Black districts to try to "equalize" things. It doesn't work. We've known about this for decades. The left doesn't like talking about it because this is prima facie evidence that genes matter and it matters a lot.
Hi David, I will look into FD’s post, thanks for linking. I don’t know if he looks into the culture aspect but I think the stats on education spending might reinforce the importance of culture, particularly at home. I think these is broad consensus that the home environment generally has a greater impact on kids than school?
I also think that if the bulk of the difference in these test scores was truly genetic then the difference in national development should somehow compound over generations and lead to an ever greater divide between ‘smart’ and ‘dumb’ nations.
But there was a time, coincidentally before the advent of mass international travel, when the West was not at the forefront, which I think somewhat deflates a purely genetic explanation for the changing fortunes of nations.
There has been tons of studies on "cultural" explanations as well. Most of the studies that show that environmental and cultural changes raise test score all suffer from fade out effects. Long term, it does not change the outcome.
As for compounding effects of genes, yes you're exactly right IF the people select partners and have children based mostly intelligence. But a country cannot control who its citizens marry right? And given the low fertility rate in most developed countries and increased low IQ immigration into developed countries, there are a lot of dysgenic effects at play.
If it’s true that certain interventions can raise scores, albeit temporarily, then that suggests something environmental and malleable is at play rather than something genetic and fixed. And if those effects fade over time, then that would be consistent with this view (assuming the environment eventually ‘relapses’ to its former state).
I think the impact of low fertility and inter-racial marriage have probably not had the time or the scale to significantly impact national averages ‘yet’ (unless there are indeed massive ethnic differences, in which case you would also have to question why normal IQ individuals are hooking up with obviously sub-normal partners).
It is funny you mention that it should be visible from space: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/JBY8GR/india-night-view-from-space-elements-of-this-image-furnished-by-nasa-JBY8GR.jpg
1.4 billion people in a fairly small geography (~483 people per square mile compared to US ~93) but not a lot of light.
Those on the lower end of the IQ scale can do alright within a setting where there are family members to keep track of them and tell them what to do, and there are clear tasks and responsibilities, manual labor to do, etc. By Western standards they struggle, but by the standards of the third world they get by alright; no one is expecting them to do math or be able to read well. The bar is really low.
Yes people with sub-normal intelligence can of course be supported to live more independently, but if we ascribe their difficulties to genetics then that support is unlikely to come from family members.
I think acknowleding the truth is the first step towards reaching any reasonable solution or a step towards solution .
Here how the chain reaction likely works
Higher IQ ( cognitive ability ) - Sophisticated culture + high trust - Advance and sophisticated institutions - Better living Standards + art/ sophiticated movies with dense plot/ progressism + kantism + HIGH GDP PER CAPITA
Oil Money = low iq + no sophisticated art / culture / sophistication
India = low iq + Advance institution ( parliamentary democracy ) STILLL one of the lowest per capita income
Also , important to note that East Asian have the highest IQ but STILL China has lower per capita income than Mexico . European WEIRD ness and non clann ness makes it more innovative ,creative , individualistic and overall a high trust society which flourishes .
I'm not sure I understand the equations, but I think you're right to point to differences in culture. Given the history of the rise and fall of nations over the centuries, I think the causal relationship may be more in the direction of cultural factors promoting higher (or lower) population IQ rather than the other way around.
I think your mistake is in how you define "live more independently". They don't live independently in a Western sense; by our standards they would practically be wards of their parents/extended family, and be piteously poor. Yet even in the US people with very subnormal intelligence hold down jobs, menial jobs to be sure, but jobs. They rely on help and families, so are not "independent" but they can earn their keep.
Now take that and apply it to a society where the average person is really poor by US standards. Large numbers of people have menial jobs and rely heavily on their family and are poor. That isn't surprising; you'd expect them to be very poor, and they are.
As to family genetics, IQ is heritable, but that doesn't mean everyone in the family has very low IQ. The guy with 95 is the smart one in the family that everyone goes to for advice, and members with 80 tend to the day to day etc. You don't need a ton of intelligence to manage day to day at a sufficient level of performance to not die, and that person can keep an eye on a number of less intelligent family members.
Again, it seems crazy if one assumes India is very much like the US or Western countries in terms of technological advancement and wealth. It very much is not.
Yes, on your last point re technology / wealth, that is absolutely true.
Low national IQ and intellectual disability:
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/african-iqs-and-mental-retardation, https://www.cremieux.xyz/i/153828779/countries-cant-have-mean-iqs-in-the-s
Nutrition and IQ: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/a-requiem-for-nutrition
Environmental factors and IQ: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to/comment/86319416
Relationship between national IQ and development: https://www.cremieux.xyz/i/153828779/lynn-gets-the-causality-backwards-from-iq-to-gdp
Changes in IQ and general intelligence within nations over the course of development: https://www.sebjenseb.net/p/changes-in-relative-cognitive-performance
Can't say much about the IQ estimates from India proper but those seem like unusually low estimates for Indian Americans (and incongruent with academic achievement/income/etc) - this article suggested an IQ around 110 based on SAT score:
https://humanvarieties.org/2023/09/06/sat-act-scores-by-detailed-race-ethnicity-2021/
Any idea why these estimates would be so different?
But ultimately this piece is extremely biased. It doesn’t account for inconsistencies in curriculums. IQ isn’t a fixed trait. It changes based on development so it makes sense that underdeveloped countries will have lower scores due to the access to education and the style of education. The test is developed to measure against a strong western education. So this is really just a conjured talking point with not enough substance to merit any truth. All it does (as designed) is encourage more animosity towards immigrants. It’s thinly veiled xenophobia.
You are just giving the conventional leftwing view here. You believe that it is all nurture, all the time. "If only we would provide adequate resources... if only we wouldn't judge by western standards... if only these race scientists weren't so xenophobic..." etc ad nauseam. Listen, I or Emil or others could give a rebuttal, but what's the point? You just need to read more on this topic and develop better arguments. It's exhausting going back to the 1970s again.
I am merely pointing out that the arguments need to be unified
The arguments are unified by having consistent results.
To you, the counter arguments are unified by prejudice, but that’s a second order effect of the results being true. You can’t make everyone look at each other in a way that’s measurably false. American culture has been trying to do that for decades and it just keeps failing. We aren’t going along with this anymore.
"It doesn’t account for inconsistencies in curriculums."
The results of an actual test of intelligence are not affected by education.
Of course they are. You’re not gonna test the same at 12 as you will at 26.
Hello Azzy, intelligence tests are standardised for age (i.e. you wouldn't give a 12 year old the same test as an adult), though you're right that education does make a difference. I'm not sure if a truly pure intelligence test is even possible.
And yes I know. I’ve done several. Being the wrong color for all the private institutes I attended. Had to be smarter instead ;)
And when you look at the vast array of age ranges in all the studies then you agree the point is invalidly made
Steven Pinker (Harvard) wrote Blank Slate more than 20 years ago. Yet people are still clinging onto "cultural and environmental" explanations. This goes to show how the far left media and education system conspire to censor any genetic explanation for disparate human achievement.
https://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0
And the far left all think of themselves as Great White Saviors of blacks and browns because they're the ones that will give them money and education and opportunities. Preferably by taxing Elon Musk out of existence of course.
Do you have any idea how much money the US and Australian governments have thrown at Blacks and Aboriginals to try to help them? Not to mention the billions in aid to Africa. They're a tax to society. They have jobs because of DEI but even with the DEI income they still manage to not create lasting wealth. Their children still have very low test score and continue to need affirmative action.
Must admit I haven’t read the book, though I believe Pinker himself was advocating for cultural and environmental explanations rather than a biological one for inter-group differences in test performance.
I did however read Steven Levitt’s Freakonomics 2 (or at least part of it), which as I recall devoted an uncomfortably large section to international differences in penis size (no pun intended), in which once again Indians did not exactly cover themselves with glory.
Pinker was never cancelled for a reason - same thing for Robert Plomin. They know how to walk the line without stepping over - focus on heredity of individuals and avoid the obvious group differences, lol.
I'd like to think (bias alert!) that it's possible Pinker was being genuine.
Genes are certainly significant, the strength of IQ heritability attests to that, but as far as I'm aware the idea that some groups are evolutionarily smarter doesn't track neatly with world history.
How come you used the North Korean defector samples when it’s well known that they’re mostly made up of upper class North Koreans? 102 isn’t representative at all and NKs (who, supposedly have an iq of 102) in SK tend to have higher drop out rates and lower prestige jobs
I’ve worked with droves of Indians over 15 years. I’ve ment one or two I liked. The rest did everything they could to annoy, network, waste time, smile to your face while diving a dagger into your back, etc. The “online right-winger” is anyone who has worked with multiple Indians for more than six months. I do not know a single American, Brit, German, Ozzy, Kiwi, Frog, etc. who doesn’t eventually become fatigued of the Indians they work with.
Indians have greatly improved their standing in chess. They have the current World Champion, 3 Indian players are right now in the world's top 10 and they have the second strongest national team with a very large pool of young GMs.
Good for the popularity of chess in India but pretty bad for the global popularity of chess as the western public cares about Magnus, Hikaru and even about Hans Niemann more than about the indian players.
Perhaps the Indian economy is the biggest loser in the rise of Indian chess. By raising the prestige of chess, including through subsidies, India is incentivizing talented youngsters to devote their energies to chess, rather than to other pursuits that would probably be both more lucrative, and more economically beneficial.
Not that that's likely to have an appreciable effect on a $4 Trillion economy, but that may be where the largest economic impact lies.
Might be useful to look at some studies with data on Indian diaspora performance in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Mauritius, Fiji etc.
These are not heavily selected populations but some of them are high SES environments.
So should help distinguish the effect of g vs nutrition etc.
You might also get some data from UK. Prior to 2010, Indian immigration to UK wasn’t very selective.
Majority was middle trading/peasant castes like Patels and Jatts.
IIRC second gen Indians in UK have an IQ somewhere in mid-90s but have school performance at par with whites.
Emil, thanks for another excellent analysis.
"Out of a population of ~1400 million, one can find many very bright people, even if the average is low."
This, along with the contribution of the caste system, plus selective immigration policy, explains the IQ difference between Indians in the United States and the national average in India.
Awhile back I ran some math assuming the Indian average was in the 70s and the Brahmin average was in the 90s (brahmins 5% of pop). I think I came up with the Indian >130 IQ numbers being substantial but still only like 10% of global white/Jewish numbers.
In order words you can fund some smart Indians, but not too many and not enough to change the world if you somehow mobilized their talent. If one were to totally write them off for cultural reasons (like the Chinese do) then it won't really matter.
https://hereticalinsights.substack.com/p/immigrants-from-where
And in reality everyone chain migrates and exploits loopholes so I expect any kind of mass immigrations of Indians, even under selective pressure, to inevitably tend towards 90s IQ at best.
Personally, I think the character of the IQ elite matters as much as its size. East Asians should be absolutely crushing us on a numbers basis, and yet their societies are all capping out at like 50% of our productivity
So if you combine the fact that there isn't some deep well of Indian talent out there with the fact that they seems particularly culturally toxic, I'd take a hard pass.
https://hereticalinsights.substack.com/p/immigrants-from-where
Trump has refused to increase the H1B cap. He recently ended the lottery in favor of ranking by salary offer (mediocre Indians hardest hit).
I'm less informed about the SBA, which is another area that Indians abuse, but it seems like Trump is trying to make some changes there too.
https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2025/05/22/the-small-business-impact-of-trumps-new-sba-loan-rules/
https://www.sba.gov/article/2025/04/29/small-business-administration-celebrates-first-100-days-accomplishments
"Personally, I think the character of the IQ elite matters as much as its size."
Great point. Here are some human traits, other than intelligence, that contribute to the ascent of humanity—integrity, inquisitiveness, intuitiveness, industriousness, insight, inspiration, imagination, inventiveness, and intentness.
While high IQ people have an enhanced capability for long term planning and thus potential appreciation for complex positive sum cooperation that is lacking in brutes, it doesn't take much for the same raw talent to get re-directed to zero sum competition (whether actively harmful or simply pointless and wasteful goodharting).
In fact its all the more ugly because at least the brutes don't couple their selfishness with wretch inducing rationalization gymnastics.
Thickly veiled.