With regards to race and IQ, I’m operating primarily on the hereditarian model championed by Jensen and others.
You claim you are open minded on this issue, yet you follow the work of a man with a clear racist agenda. How does that compute? He has been funded by the Pioneer Fund with strong links to white supremacists.
Jensen has stubbornly claimed there is a 15 IQ point difference between whites and blacks which cannot be changed in any way. Yet pretty much any newer research on twins show that this gap is either profoundly narrowed or non-existent when blacks are raised in white families.
- Drew Thomas finds no big difference.
- Eyferth study of American GIs in Germany show that biracial children have roughly the same IQ score as whites.
- Dr. Elsie Moore also looked at adopted children and found no differences in IQ score.
- IQ score difference between black and white 12-year olds have dropped from 15 to 9.5 the last 30 years. According to Jensen that would be impossible. He repeatedly claimed improving environment would have no effect.
So you are throwing your lot behind a guy championed by white supremacists and which have been proven very wrong.
Jensen claimed genes for intelligence would soon be found that those genes would be more prevalent among whites than blacks. Yet long after he made those claims, we are nowhere nearer discovering such genes.
The theory predicts that these groups differences should be consistent across time, across states, across countries. And the data supports this.
Except countless studies contradict this claim, some of which I have mentioned above. We have seen the Flynn effect being stronger in Africa than in e.g. Nordic countries. Directly contradicting this claim.
Yes I know there are studies supporting the heredetarians. I am just pointing out that there are studies supporting the opposite view. And you cannot escape the fact that a lot of these hereditarian studies are tainted by the fact that they are often supported by eugenicists, racists or white supremacists. Start looking and you quickly see Pioneer Fund, Mankind Quarterly or people like Richard Lynn featuring somewhere in those studies.
To say Lynn is a nice piece of work would be an understatement. Back in the 1970s he had concluded Irish IQ was around 88–90:
They found their sample had an IQ of 88 compared with 100 in Britain (Hart and O’Sullivan, 1970) and therefore closely similar to the IQ of 90 that Macnamara had reported.
From this he seems to imply that Eugenics would be a suitable solution to the problem:
Furthermore, it would raise the question of what policies could be adopted to solve the problem.
These would be a set of eugenic policies that would raise the Irish IQ, such as the sterilization of the mentally retarded and incentives for graduates to have more children.
He lived in Ireland in the 1960s and made the conclusion that the economic backwardsness of Ireland was caused by low IQ:
It appeared that the low IQ was likely a significant cause of the Irish economic backwardness.
This reasoning of course falls completely flat on its face if you look at Irish GDP today which per capita is only beaten by mini-state Luxembourg today (2020), at $86,988, putting Ireland at the 4th place in international GDP rankings, depending on which source you use of course.
Lynn has not been alone in making these suggestions about the Irish. You also have Eysenck:
Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.
Your side of the fence, has an embarrassing reality to deal with there. If social problems, crime, economic development etc is all a product of IQ inherent IQ, then how on Earth did the Irish managed to become one of the richest in Europe while having close to the same IQ as Blacks?
According to the reality you prescribe to, Blacks due to their IQ are doomed to be underachievers and overrepresented on all bad statistics. Yet the Irish has proven that people in that IQ range can be widely successful.
To me none of this is a mystery. The explanation is quite simple IMHO. Anybody who has read Irish history know they have for centuries been fiercly suppressed and discriminated by the British. The fact that they where Catholic made them hated by the British. I have been to Ireland and seen some of this stuff myself. You walk around and you see magnificent colleges, churches etc and quickly learned anything that was anything good in Ireland was reserved for a tiny Protestant minority. The catholics got the shittiest schools, churches and everything.
In many ways the Irish got treated like African-Americans, and surprise, surprise, their IQ and economic and social outcomes turned out almost equally bad.
Yet when freedom from the British, the Irish gradually managed to pull themselves up. Free from oppression and discrimination they pulled ahead and became Europe’s Celtic Tiger economy.
Here is another embarrassement to your side of the fence. Back in the 1916s they did various IQ tests. Kimball Young, wrote Intelligence Tests of Certain Immigrant Groups study:
The Spanish have an IQ score of 78 here. Today they have 98 according to this table.Which is the same as for Denmark and France e.g. In other words no big difference from other advanced European nations.
Portugal has 95 today according to the same table, but had 84 back in the 1916.
When we compare with Northern Europeans the difference was staggering. There was a 21 IQ point difference back then for the Portugese. For the Spanish it was 27 points.
Today there is almost no difference. Northern Europeans have IQ scores mostly around 99–100 today.
Think about that for a second:
The IQ difference in 1916 between Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans was more profound than between blacks and whites today in the USA.
If your buddies Jensen and Lynn had been around in 1916, they would have immediately preached that Spanish people, Italians and Portugese had to be kept out of the US. And lets forget about improving their schooling or social condition. No, IQ is impossible to change! Let us just accept their poverty and backwardness and move on.
Of course that was exactly how things where back then. These groups of people got heavily discriminated and there was strong forced to limit their entry to the US.
People with the same kinds of views as you back in the 1916 turned out to be wrong. People with the same kinds of views as you in the 1960s looking at Ireland turned out to be wrong. Why should we believe you today?
Why are you so exceedingly open minded towards researchers funded by organizations with a racist agenda (Pioneer Fund), while you are so critical of people using culture, nutrition, history, wealth and discrimination as tools to understand differences between people? You think I have an agenda, but refuse to acknowledge that the ones you lean on have one?
Who is the ideological blind one?