No, the Racial IQ Gap is Not Shrinking

It is well known that the heritability of intelligence among children is considerably lower, at approximately 0.42 among 4-6 year olds, and 0.55 for the age group 6 to 20, according to Richard Lynn (Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis). The IQs of unrelated adopted children raised together show, as you pointed out, relatively strong correlations, by by adolescence the correlation drops nearly to zero. The reason for this is that parents exercise environmental influences upon children which progressively wear off during adolescence; that is, phenotype becomes more reflective of underlying genotype with age. The same phenemonon is known to happen with height, weight, and many other genetically influenced traits. Thus, intelligence behaves just as you would expect it to behave if the hereditarian model holds true.

By Jewish Racial Conservative on 4/23/08 at 6:00 pm

The discussion with Robert Lindsey is fascinating. Mr. Lindsey seems to be motivated by genuine concern in the tradition of Lincoln, yet he knows there are problems. The IQ gap may be real, but the improvidence gap is the biggigggggg problem. A person does not need to be very bright to be successful in the USA. Stay out of debt, work, don’t have children out of wedlock, etc. and you’ll do well. Visit a ghetto on any given day and you’ll see drug sales, quickcash outlets, rent to own ripoffs, and liquor stores dominate the economy. My beef with the race realists is that they document the problem well, but seem to advocate leaving blacks to founder. Me beef with the Lindsey types is that they cannot face reality. The solution may be good, old fashioned paternalism. Ban booze, drugs, legalized loan sharking, etc. and set high moral standards. Black people may never dominate the math and physics faculty, but they may live very well and become wealthy if the improvidence problem is dealt with. The IQ gap is also a joke in the sense that even pessimistic estimates of black IQ admit that many blacks are smarter than the average white. The issue is the standards that we will accept for our society. If Mr. Lindsey is truly compassionate he will advocate high standards for all regardless of race.

By Quandary on 4/23/08 at 9:36 pm

Mr. Lindsey seems to be motivated by genuine concern in the tradition of Lincoln, yet he knows there are problems.

Finally someone figures me out. A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em. I am an integrationist. Segregation is not just bad but deadly for Blacks as well as for others and it’s non-deadly effects cascade out too.

My beef with the race realists is that they document the problem well, but seem to advocate leaving blacks to founder.

Exactly. And as I noted above, segregation of Blacks is not only a nightmare, but it’s a disaster. It’s also one that is never self-contained.

The IQ gap may be real, but the improvidence gap is the biggigggggg problem.

Something like my position. Personally, I do not feel that the improvidence thing, or Black crime, or Black pathologies in general, have all that much to do with IQ. It may have to do more with personality, and may in part be heritable. I’m not convinced that very much brighter Blacks would act dramatically better, sorry.

Me beef with the Lindsey types is that they cannot face reality. The solution may be good, old fashioned paternalism.

Well that is what Black a block is supposed to be all about. Surround Blacks with better than ghetto examples, and I am convinced that they rise higher. In the ghetto, the just sink down to the rest. I don’t agree with all the laws, though. And of course I advocate for high standards for all. Blacks are really in need of this more than others due to higher levels of pathologies. Thing is, if you go to Black websites, you see with-it Blacks railing against ghetto culture night and day, so you can’t say that they are not aware of it either.

By on 4/24/08 at 12:08 am

“… segregation of Blacks is not only a nightmare, but it’s a disaster.”

Who is segregating them? No one: blacks, like all people, want to live amongst their own kind. And how would we desegregate them except through force and the tyranny of social engineering?

By on 4/24/08 at 1:37 am

Well, Robert, you certainly don’t make it easy for people to figure you out. At one moment, you’re railing against people who think that there are permanent racial IQ differences and calling sites like this nasty. At the next, you’re voicing opinions that could only be taken seriously on pro-white sites. Yet further evidence of your neurosis.

At your blog, you criticize me for wanting to overturn the Civil Rights Act. However, what you’re suggesting here is far more radical. All I want is for people to make their own decisions about who to live around. What you want is some massive state-controlled integration project that would place one black on a block. Only a totalitarian state could carry out such a project. But I guess an avowed Marxist like yourself isn’t too worried about totalitarian states.

I don’t think America’s experience with segregation justifies your statement that segregation is a disaster. The black underclass culture you complain about in fact emerged after segregation ended. Ironically, blacks were more at peace with American society during the segregation period than they are now.

By on 4/24/08 at 7:38 am

Segregation does not seem to be a solution. Our country is as segregated now as ever. I’ve paid attention during all the black history months. Almost every town had a Shakerag, or Smelterville. Blacks fled these shanty towns and moved north seeking better jobs, but the improvement was short lived. Today parts of American cities that once contained beautiful architecture are in ruins. We tried public housing projects and they became ruins. We’ve tried section 8 housing and that is only spreading the destruction from the inner cities to nearby suburbs. To be black in America must be like being Charlie Brown when Lucy pulls the football away. Slavery is repealed and there is rejoicing, but it is short lived. Mot of the benefits brought about by the civil rights movement have been overshadowed by the economic disaster that the welfare state caused for black families. Everything we try seems to backfire. Whites are frustrated and blacks are often angry. Who is the Lucy who keeps pulling the football away?

Lucy is tolerance for the illegal drug trade. We don’t really have a war on drugs. Drugs are highly profitable and politically influential. Lucy is tolerance of those who victimize poor people through payday loans, 90 days same as cash, etc. Lucy is high payroll taxes that punish the working poor, and government policies that punish a woman for having a husband at home by taking away her kid’s health benefit. Many white people think they have a moral responsibility to fix the black underclass. Their ancestors brought blacks to this continent and the descendants are not going back. Segregation just keeps the kettle boiling yet everything else has failed. The black a block rule could work, but seems impractical. People even segregate themselves in the lunchroom so how are we to desegregate a country? White men and black women will strongly resent desegregation because of the imbalance in interracial dating and marriage. Mexico had a black population that was as high a percentage as the US at one time. Mexico’s black population has largely been absorbed by intermarriage.

Out national quandary is the racial problem and it remains the elephant in the room that no one talks about. I disagree with Dr. Jobling if he is advocating enforced segregation, but at least this site generates an honest discussion.

By Quandary on 4/24/08 at 8:55 am

Of course I am being facetious.

Too bad you can’t figure that out. “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em” refers to integration. That’s all it means. Integration is great for Blacks. Segregation was bad for them then and it’s for them bad now. As far as Blacks preferring to live around their own kind, I am not so sure about that. We are seeing a lot of evidence of “Black Flight” in the US. I am even seeing some “Hispanic Flight” right here where I am typing this comment. Even Blacks and Hispanics can figure out when a place is Hispanic-wrecked or Black-wrecked. Too many poor Blacks and/or Hispanics in one place is never a good thing. Blacks and Hispanics are not stupid, despite this WN propaganda that insists they are. They can figure stuff out.

I will submit that my statements are not used by actual antis, or anti-racists. However, most Whites are not anti crazies. Most are more like nons, non-racists. These statements that I have made right here, I have heard stated by so many regular, non-racist type Whites in my life that I can’t even count them.

The other commenter is correct. You guys are all Black and White. Whites are either crazy anti- maniacs who don’t make sense, or they are White Nationalists like you all who support segregation and all sorts of nonsense. Forget it. Most Whites are somewhere in the middle - just like me. If that makes us racial neurotics then so it is. Deal with it.

PS. I do not believe you guys and your glories of segregation argument. Tell you what. Ask Black folks how many of them want to go back to segregation. See how many say yes.

By on 4/24/08 at 9:31 am

What we’re trying to figure out here is a) what your beliefs about race are and b) what policies on race you advocate. On point a, you veer wildly, by turns abusing and espousing race realist beliefs. On point b, you appear to have nothing to say except that you’re in favor of racial integration. Well, America has been in favor of racial integration for 50 years. It hasn’t happened, and attempts to make it happen have resulted in intense racial antagonisms. Saying you’re in favor of racial integration is as banal as saying you’re against crime. Not only is it banal, but it begs all of the questions we discuss on this site.

Until you can take positions that are at once internally consistent and substantive, I’m not going to approve any more of your comments.

By on 4/24/08 at 10:31 am

Ian,

Hear Hear!

By Tom on 4/24/08 at 1:34 pm

Views on race? The less said about it, the better. I’m a Commie. I’m into economics. And I hate nationalism. Especially ethnic nationalism. Reminds me of fascism, and we Lefties have no deadlier enemies. And I do mean deadly.

Yes, I am a bit of a race realist. It’s clear that there are differences in the races in aggregate. And in ethnic groups. It’s still being sorted out why this is so, but the differences are there and they cannot be argued away in many cases. My positions on race are similar to Fred on Everything, who I deny is a racist. If you want to play games, NE Asians are superior to Whites. We could breed with them and the Jews and improve the stock.

It’s not true that integration has failed. It’s an ongoing project, one that you all oppose. I support it. You don’t. That’s the difference. All the difference. I also support affirmative action. I oppose mass immigration, mostly on environmental grounds. I am extremely opposed to illegal immigration. I want quality immigrants only. We are importing far too many low quality immigrants. I have no objections to an IQ test to get into the US, other than for spouses of citizens. In addition to lots and lots of other tests. I’m a citizenist a la Sailer. As far as Black problems, I have no idea what to do. Segregation is not coming back.

It’s not really about race. African immigrants do better than any other. Filipino immigrants are some of the best performing of the Asian immigrants. This may be because they are well-chosen. I know the African immigrants have to go through rigorous selection, which is the way it should be. Even Hispanic immigrants would be much less of a problem if we were very rigorous about how we chose them. There is a large group of Hispanics who are assimilated well to US society, and another group forming a new Underclass. We have to figure out how to import the former as immigrants and not the latter. I do want immigration limited on environmental grounds for the most part.

You make some good points about whether the things we liberals value in the US will still be here with a non-White majority, but I am not convinced. Anyway. The White majority is headed out no matter what in the US. But Western civilization with its liberal values is still worth saving even with a non-White majority.

I want to know what you stand for, Dr. Jobling. You are quite discreet on this, for obvious reasons.

By on 4/24/08 at 3:10 pm

Robert,

Your view that races differ in temperament but not in intellectual qualities, ties in nicely with old-school economist Marxist theory.

An economic Marxist can admit temperament differences between races exist, as these can be moderated through integration, but they can’t admit IQ differences exist as these will undermine Marxist arguments in favour of economic equality.

However, denying IQ differences to my mind is actually supports economic inequality, because it feeds into the right liberal argument that the poor aren’t poor because of low intelligence (which I believe is the case) but because they are lazy or rebellious.

If you really believe in economic equality then you should admit genetic differences in intelligence, and support measures to moderate inequality through things like promoting family planning, breast feeding, anti-consumerism etc that will help the poor make the most of their genetic limitations.

As far as your criticism of racial seperatism goes, I think you have a much stronger argument. It’s hard to see how racially segregated states can be formed without considerable bloodshed, economic dislocation, or how they can be sustained in the long term.

On the other hand, liberal totalitarianism won’t work either,in the long-run different ethnic groups won’t tolerate their taxes being spent on boosting the numbers of rival ethnic groups.

As a conservative democrat, I think the most realistic solution is some sort of conservative federalism, which allows states to tailor their laws and policies according to the ethnic balance and political views of their locality.

This allows for the interest of the majority to take precedence of the greedy minority, whilst allows the minority an escape route should intolerance or persecution occur.

By on 4/24/08 at 7:36 pm

Marx and Engels were themselves racialists. For instance, Marx believed that capacity for economic development depended in part on race:

“The possibility is here presented for definite economic development taking place, depending, of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm

By Jewish Racial Conservative on 4/24/08 at 8:06 pm

Robert,

What you say about my not having clearly declared my political principles is quite true, and it is, indeed, high time that I do that. So you can come back when I do.

By on 4/24/08 at 9:17 pm

Robert Lindsay, The point is that there is NO middle ground.What you seem to espousing here is your own denial of an uncomfortable and painful reality that intruded on your ‘safe little world’ and which you try vainly vanish away by choosing NOT to think about it, or rather in your case, by constructing a hodge-podge of disconnected, dissonate self-contradictions, excuses and rationalizations. Of course, the classic metaphor is of the dead two-to elephant lying on the living room carpet.It has died years ago, a most noisome stink emanates from the carcass, flys buzz around everywhere,maggots crawl all over the carpet, but to one part of your mind it doesn’t exist. Having actually to deal with it by getting ‘one’s hands dirty’ is simply too painful.

By Foxbark on 4/25/08 at 7:04 am

Why do some people have a hard time discussing the IQ gap rationally? Instead of assuming a neorisis is involved perhaps it is a religious matter. The anti-racist movement grew out of the civil rights movement, which grew out of the abolitionist movement. All were fueled by Christian progressive thought. The decision to ignore even the possibility of any IQ gap is an internally rational one similar to the decision to ignore any doubts about the resurection of Christ. The eleventh commandment states, “Thou shalt not admit the possibility of racial differences.”

There exists within Christianity a self flagellating strain of thought. While Judiasm with its emphasis on wisdom, law, cleanliness, etc has always been a pragmatic religion, Christianity’s demand of universal brotherhood can make Chritianity a bit irrational. The idea that suffering is somehow good and noble makes some Christians wish that we could all be meek, lowly, and united in suffering; therfore we will leave the imigration floodgates open and invite all the world’s poor until we all starve together in unity.

The first great Christian reformation centuries ago was never completed, and Christianity needs to rediscover the Jewish pragmatism at the core of its beliefs to complete that reformation.

By Quandary on 4/25/08 at 3:14 pm

“We are importing far too many low quality immigrants. I have no objections to an IQ test to get into the US, other than for spouses of citizens.”

But what about the well documented cases of regression towards the mean?

By Scott on 4/27/08 at 8:16 pm

I spent about 10 hours of my waking day today thinking about the racial differences in intelligence, and finally I had a breakthrough, specifically, in regards to how to conceptualize the enigmatic Flynn Effect.

Go with my analogy for a bit on this. The brain can be thought of as a “muscle,” and the environment can be thought of as a “gym.” When I use the words muscle or gym, or variants of it, that is what I’m referring to. Let us suppose that this muscle is inherited genetically and yet strengthened at the gym, which we can all agree on & is mainstream science.

Let us go further with this. Suppose you have one man, representing race “A,” and another man representing race “B.” Man A is more muscular than Man B, before hey even started going to the gym.

In 1948, they decide to go to the gym to workout. Even though they spend the same time in the same gym and exercise in the same identical fashion, Man B cannot lift more than 70 pounds, whereas Man A’s muscle cannot lift more than 85 pounds. They try and try but this is their peak. Man A tends to win more prize money in bodybuilding competitions because his muscle tends to be more developed than Man B’s.

Man A and Man B find a machine that is able to take them into the future, but the two men can only time travel together. They hop aboard and decide to go to the year 2008. They go back to the gym and it’s changed. It has new exercise equipment which they use to develop their muscularity. It’s far more complex inside and the gym’s advancements tend to yield better results. Man A and Man B begin using the new gym, and see new results. Because of the new and effective equipment, Man B is now able to lift 85 pounds. Man A is also able to increase his muscle’s strength, and is now able to lift 100 pounds. Man A again tends to win more prize money than Man B, and this angers Man B.

“Man A was able to be so successful back in 1948,” Man B notes, even though “he was only able to lift 85 pounds with his muscle.” Now, Man B wonders, “why can’t I be successful since I am now able to lift that same amount?” Man B contemplates further by thinking that even if he were to go back to 1948, he would need the 2008 gym to complete with Man A, yet at the same time, Man A would need to be limited to the 1948 gym. Man B extrapolates some, and also gets depressed thinking that if he were to stay in the year 2008, and compete with Man A, he would “need a futuristic gym, say from 2058, somehow sent back to 2008, in order for him to catch up to Man A’s muscularity, while Man A is simultaneously only able to use 2008’s gym.” Man B realizes that this is also an impossibility, since they are only able to time travel together. His animosity and anger grows as he acknowledges his comparative disadvantage, realizing that he will always be stuck in the same gym as Man A.

By Scott on 4/27/08 at 9:54 pm

Apart from actually looking at specific distributions of genetic markers in the DNA that are linked to intelligence, and noting which groups have more or less, the best case for proving the importance of genes as they relate to intelligence are perhaps transracial adoption studies.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

IQ at Age 7 IQ at Age 17

W-W 111.5 W-W 101.5 W-B 105.4 W-B 93.2 B-B 91.4 B-B 83.7

W-W = Adopted children with two white biological parents. W-B = Adopted children with one black and one white biological parent. B-B = Adopted children with two black biological parents.

Notice that the W-W/W-B difference is 8.3 IQ points, and the B-W/B-B difference is 9.5 IQ points. And the W-W/B-B difference is 17.8 IQ points.

The difference in IQ scores between 2 black biological parent adoptees and 1 black biological parent adoptees is nearly 10 IQ points despite the fact that both share the exact same social identity.

Similarly a dozen mixed race children that were raised under some mistaken information that they had two black biological parents nevertheless developed IQ scores like the other mixed race children. Their genes took over. This is quite interesting. So much for the so-called ‘stereotype threat.’

Studies like these add a great amount of weight to the hereditarian viewpoint.

By Scott on 4/27/08 at 11:30 pm

Scott,

Your comment implies that the Flynn effect is reflecting a real gain in IQ. However, if IQs really had risen as much as Flynn says it has, it would mean that the average person a century ago was retarded by today’s standards. Moreover, there is no independent evidence of increasing intelligence. So the effect remains a mystery. The most plausible explanation I’ve read is that the Flynn effect is caused by the fact that people mature earlier today than in the past.

By on 4/27/08 at 11:33 pm

That’s an interesting explanation, and I’m sure it’s partly true. I also think that the g-men make some valid points as well.

I, however, do think that people maybe are really getting smarter. Cranial vaults are increasing in size (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/71007970/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 ).

“…it would mean that the average person a century ago was retarded by today’s standards.”

I don’t think that the Flynn Effect necessarily mandates that 1 SD has to decrease every 50 years or so. It could lower at a much lower rate, or maybe even achieve some degree of stability. In a certain environment the White IQ could hover right around 80 or so, by our modern standards, and maybe even stay there for hundreds of years. Many people in the past were in agricultural fields were they did not have much in terms of mental stimulation. Put them in a time machine to 2008, and I suspect that they might be far closer to our mean. Suppose, hypothetically, that Blacks lived amongst those White farmers, I suspect even then we’d see some sort of gap just as we would if they were transplanted into today’s society, as I believe that there are differences in how much the brains are able to flex and strengthen based upon environment. At some point there has to be a limit to this, as the environment can only get so complicated, unless the genetic aspect of IQ is enhanced.

By Scott on 4/28/08 at 12:12 am

Scott, I believe that the White IQ was probably around 80 for a very long time, but we may never really know.

Dr. Jobling’s comments are fallacies that have already been taken apart. It does not necessarily mean that our ancestors were retarded at all, it is just that they thought in a different way than we do. If we could travel back and show them our scientific way of thinking, they might think that this is stupid and say something like, “What’s the point?”

You need to read Flynn’s latest book, “What is Intelligence?” that goes into this in depth. Also on my blog is a very complex piece on the Flynn Effect that takes it apart in every way you can imagine and explains some of Dr. Jobling’s complaints. Further, Dr. Jobling’s argument that the FE is due to earlier maturation was taken apart in the journals decades ago and is now no longer even discussed. Flynn is an acquaintance of mine and we have discussed all this stuff before.

The FE is real, and you guys need to deal with it in one way or another. Further, the FE has been accompanied by increasing head size. If you spend a lot of time around young folks these days, you can see that in a lot of ways they are a lot smarter than you think. There is nothing in their brains, but their brains do work very fast.

By on 4/29/08 at 7:54 am

I was just reading the Dickens and Flynn paper I linked to in this post—I actually hadn’t read it before, as I decided to accept Rushton and Jensen’s word that it was bogus. Anyway, the study finds that the average black IQ at age 24 is 84.5, which is the same as the estimate of 85 that is standard among race realist psychologists like Richard Lynn and Arthur Jensen. Dickens and Flynn only find higher IQs for sub-adult blacks.

So, Dickens and Flynn, the people who are supposed to be producing these revolutionary findings challenging the consensus about race and IQ, aren’t really saying anything that surprising at all, just that IQ has gone up among black children and teens. Big deal!

By on 4/29/08 at 8:51 pm

Correct, but the IQ’s of young Blacks have gone up, and that is the exact point.

By on 4/30/08 at 5:14 am

Ok, so I just read an article by Flynn and I think that Flynn makes some good points. I thought it interesting that he also used the brain as a muscle analogy. He notes that individuals can have slightly better genes for intelligence, even though he doesn’t tie it to race, but knowing what we know about evolution, the implications are obvious.

Just as the races on average have differences in “ceilings” that they can reach, in say distance running, the races have different intellectual ceilings, even if their environments are the same. That was the point I was trying to make in my “muscle” & “gym” analogy. Unless there is a change at the genetic level, NAM’s will always be playing baseball with a wooden bat while Whites and Asians will have an aluminum one.

It’s interesting that there is evidence that the Flynn Effect has halted in Scandinavian countries; I am personally doubtful that the racial gap will ever be closed save some sort of eugenics program. It would be misleading however to deny that there is a good deal of evidence out there that suggests that the gains aren’t in the areas are the most important for day-to-reasoning, but they are gains nonetheless; Flynn does have a point that even an increase in one area, even though it may not be as germane as other areas, can still be of benefit. But because of the haziness surrounding whether or not it’s a real gain or not (I haven’t made up my mind 100% here, and it may be impossible to ever know the answer) I think that the best evidence to support the hereditarian model comes from the Transracial Adoptions. What really matters is that there has always been a relative gap.

Robert, regarding your post, you could do away with the ad hominem stuff, as I find it distracting, but hey that’s just me. Note that when you quoted the “mosquito dodging IQ,” the “story-telling ability IQ,” etc., as coming from Malloy, you should note that he was actually quoting someone else and then criticizing them.

And can writers stop citing that ancient study of mulatto children in Germany done in 1961? Can it be replicated? There’s been so many transracial adoption studies that show otherwise but the other side always reverts to the rule of one.

By Scott on 4/30/08 at 7:23 pm

mike courtman wrote,

“I think the most realistic solution is some sort of conservative federalism, which allows states to tailor their laws and policies according to the ethnic balance and political views of their locality.

This allows for the interest of the majority to take precedence of the greedy minority, whilst allows the minority an escape route should intolerance or persecution occur.”

My views exactly.

By Scott on 5/1/08 at 3:35 pm

“Surround Blacks with better than ghetto examples, and I am convinced that they rise higher. “

Wealthy blacks who live in well-off neighborhood don’t seem able to close the IQ gap. Indeed, at higher levels of income, the gap widens a bit. I’m reminded of Prince George County in Maryland, the wealthiest majority black county in the United States. It seems the pesky little test score gap won’t go away there and officials have been tearing there hair out trying to make it go away. Amazing how that works, isn’t it?

By on 5/2/08 at 8:54 am

“The FE is real, and you guys need to deal with it in one way or another.”

As Flynn himself has stated, the Flynn effect is not seen on psychometric g. It therefore doesn’t address the black/white IQ gap which shows that on measures of g, the gap hasn’t changed in over 30 years.

I recall Jason Malloy over at GNXP attempting to explain this to you and you didn’t get it.

By on 5/2/08 at 8:58 am

“Surround Blacks with better than ghetto examples, and I am convinced that they rise higher.”

Doubful. Blacks whose parents earn /more/ than 40,000 per year have lower average IQs than whites whose parents earn /less/ than 20,000 per year (Michael Hart, /Understanding Human History/).

By Jewish Racial Conservative on 5/2/08 at 11:55 am

It would be misleading however to deny that there is a good deal of evidence out there that suggests that the gains aren’t in the areas are the most important for day-to-reasoning,

This is completely, 100% false. The gains are in areas of abstract thinking, visual and verbal both. If you don’t think that abstract thinking is high level stuff, you need to go back to school yourself. No one on this thread understands the Flynn Effect, or g, or any of that stuff.

What really matters is that there has always been a relative gap.

An important point, and I do acknowledge it.

Robert, regarding your post, you could do away with the ad hominem stuff, as I find it distracting,

It’s an old post, I removed most of the ad-hom, and Molloy is still angry. I don’t like Molloy one bit, and he’s pre-emptively banned from my blog. Not only that, but he’s dangerous as Hell, as the MSM is starting quote him as a “nonracist liberal”, which he most certainly is not.

His mosquito-dodging quotes were rude and insulting towards Blacks, as is most everything out WN or GNXP, and I would never say such a thing myself.

“Surround Blacks with better than ghetto examples, and I am convinced that they rise higher. “

Wealthy blacks who live in well-off neighborhood don’t seem able to close the IQ gap.

Right, but I am talking about psychometric tests. I am talking about reductions in your typical black ghetto type behaviors. Impressionistically, I think there is less of it when you take Blacks out of the ghetto and make them a minority in a White or even Hispanic community. I am around some Blacks now that are doing ok, and I am certain that in any ghetto they would be long gone, but again, that’s just impressionism.

“The FE is real, and you guys need to deal with it in one way or another.”

I recall Jason Malloy over at GNXP attempting to explain this to you and you didn’t get it.

But this is not true either. Recent studies show that there is a .5 correlation with the FE and fluid g, but none with crystallized g. First of all, in a way, g is just statistical nonsense. All it is is a giant correlation coefficient. That’s all it is. Nothing else. The FE shows strong rises in some areas, moderate in others, and low to zero in others. On its face, there’s no g gain there. To get a g gain, you have to do better in an across the board kind of way across all tests. As you can see, g is a little bit silly. It was made up by Jensen and the others when Flynn discovered the FE, as a way to say that IQ no longer mattered (as it was rising) but what really mattered was this BS called g. Molloy explained nothing to me. I understand his argument completely and I just summarized it above. The FE shows strong gains on verbal and nonverbal intelligence and abstract thinking and even on some tests of raw brain speed. All that stuff is fluid g. Fluid g is a test of raw brain efficiency. However, hard stuff like vocabulary, reading comprehension, math, abstract math and general knowledge has shown low to little gain. Brains are working great, but people don’t know more words, read better, do better math and algebra or know more stuff than they did 50 years ago. Or they only do a little better.

You guys need to do some reading and then come back and we can talk some more, ok?

By on 5/3/08 at 6:02 am

In response to Dr. Jobling’s last post, Robert Lindsay writes:

“Correct, but the IQ’s of young Blacks have gone up, and that is the exact point.”

RL seems to be saying that his whole case against race realism comes down to this fact, which Dr. J thinks is no big deal. I don’t understand why the mere fact that IQ scores among young blacks have gone up would show or even suggest that race realism is wrong - especially if, as Dr. J says, the same results show taht adult IQ is no higher. Race realism doesn’t deny that there are environmental influences on intelligence (or IQ). Moreover, it’s easy to imagine why measurements of teenage IQ might be less representative of innate intelligence than measurements of adult IQ. So what is RL’s “exact point” here?

By JayZ on 5/3/08 at 11:41 am

AFAICT, White nationalists simply refuse to even so much as state the points that you just stated, JayZ. Further, many WN prescriptions seem to rely on notions that Blacks, owing to that “85” IQ, are so stupid that they are ineducable. Therefore, there is no reason to spend any money on trying to do just that. Also, WN’s misrepresent the achievement gap. They have long held that the achievement gap is the same as the IQ gap, set in stone and unable to budge even one inch. This is not true. In the past 30 years, Blacks have reduced the achievement gap by 1/3. Furthermore, adult Black IQ’s have gone up. They have been going up three points a decade for 70 years. This means that the Black adults of today have higher IQ’s than the Whites of WW2 - the early 50’s. Thing is, White adult IQ has been going up too, so it’s all a wash. But I almost zero WN’s even acknowledging that Black adult IQ is rocketing up as high as it is.

Once you all start conceding some of these points, I am going to be a lot happier.

By on 5/3/08 at 10:16 pm

Dr. Jobling, I would appreciate it if you would not put anti-racist in quotes when you discuss me. There is no need to. One is either an anti-racist or not. And I am one. Thx.

By on 5/6/08 at 7:30 am

Bob,

I put the term “racist” in scare quotes because it is a hostile label for race realists, and I want to encourage readers to view it critically and skeptically. The same applies to all words derived from “racist.”

By on 5/6/08 at 2:48 pm

Wow! clash of the Titans! Dare I step in?…

Of course.

Mr. Lindsay, I echo—and perhaps distill—what Dr. Jobling says about the term “racist”: it’s a hostile label for people who are so “misguided” or “evil” or “guilty” as to—God forgive me!—challenge your whole premise. Define the r-word for us, please! What exactly does it mean?

Meanwhile, in a gesture of cognitive solidarity with you:

I condemn unicorns! and I definitely am anti-leprechaun! I just know those little miscreants are letting the air out of my tires at night… And I will never rest until the Tooth Fairy is in jail!

By Oops, the brainwashing wore off... on 5/6/08 at 9:31 pm

Racism means you actively dislike members of some particular race to the extent that you either discriminate against them, wage propaganda attacks on them in person or in print or on air, or you treat them less than you would someone of your own kind, or you generalize about them in some way “all Blacks bla bla”. Separatism is getting awful close to racism too. If you dislike some folks so much you want to get clean away from them, that’s getting near racist.

You guys are all racists. That’s just all that there is to it. For starters, never met one White Nationalist who did want to get rid of the civil rights act and end anti-discrimination laws, who was not opposed to the civil rights movement and its leaders, who supported integration or who opposed segregation. To make matters worse, most of them support the South retrospectively in the Civil War. You guys’ whole agenda is to screw over Blacks and maybe other non-Whites in any way you can get away with without actually physically assaulting them.

Now, I myself am a racist. Against Gypsies. Don’t like em one bit, but I might make friends with one if I checked them out a lot before.

A lot of you guys have been victims of Black crime and now you just want to get away from Blacks period. It figures that would turn someone racist, but it’s kind of sad.

In today’s White America, any kind of overt racism such as that you and Amren are peddling is going to go over like a lead balloon. If you would only peddle more reasonable stuff like ending the war of words on Whites, promoting White pride, and tossing out illegals, and clam up about the rest, you might find you could have a product you could actually sell.

Racism is a much abused term. I get called one all the time. But there are indeed racists in this world.

By on 5/7/08 at 3:21 am

Robert: Maybe you’re right that some WNs (or some people, in any case) would deny the facts that we’re talking about. But I’m still not sure what you’re saying about these facts.

If you’re saying that these facts show that a certain very radical (and dumb) view of race differences is wrong, fine: if scores for young blacks have risen, it’s false that black IQ can’t ever rise past 85 no matter what changes in the environment.

But there is a more moderate form of race realism, which I think is what Dr. J and others believe. This position says that there is a significant hereditary difference between the races in terms of intelligence and other important traits. The difference means that blacks will not do as well as whites in many areas of life regardless of environmental interventions, social changes, etc. (Unless, of course, we were to do everything possible to improve environments for blacks while trying to make them worse for whites and asians.)

Are you saying that that kind of race realism is falsified by the facts you’ve been citing? If so, I don’t understand the argument. It seems possible that there big social/environmental changes in the last century have raised IQ all around. But the “realist” view is that the racial differences are still there because they’re hereditary. We can try to improve black IQ, and we should do what we can, but we can’t create racial equality. That seems consistent with your facts, but it’s also a kind of race realism. At any rate, it’s un-PC and anti-egalitarian, and can be used (together with some other premises) to support some kinds of WN.

Incidentally, intelligent realists like Dr. J have allowed for the possibility of IQ gains from the outset, since the hereditarian view is not that IQ reflects a 100% hereditary capacity, but merely that egalitarians are wrong to claim that IQ is totally or massively environmental. If the hereditary component is 50-70% (say) that is a very important determinant, but obviously it leaves room for significant gains in cases where the environment is very bad. So what are you saying about that kind of position, which is probably closer to the real views of Dr. J, Taylor and others?

Regarding your later post, you’re going way beyond the evidence in saying that realism or WN is motivated by a wish to “screw over blacks”. Some people might be motivated by that, just like some libs or Jews push egalitarianism because they want to screw over white men. But some people just think that realism is true, and that civil rights laws, AA and forced integration are wrong and bad for society. It’s not fair to ignore the reasons and principles that realists and WNs offer in support of their opinions, and to accuse them of some irrational wish to harm blacks.

I don’t see that there’s any evidence that everyone on this board has those feelings. I certainly don’t. I “dislike” blacks only in the sense that you seem to: I know that a predominantly black neighborhood or country is one that I don’t want to live in, because it’s scary, violent, chaotic, etc. But I don’t wish ill on blacks. I just don’t want to live in the kind of society they seem to create wherever they’re present in large enough numbers. So if wanting to screw over blacks (or whoever) is a part of your definition of “racism”, you have no reason to say that Dr. J or even Jared Taylor are “racists”.

By JayZ on 5/7/08 at 2:56 pm

Great response, JayZ. It says everything that needs to be said.

By on 5/7/08 at 6:14 pm

“It was made up by Jensen and the others when Flynn discovered the FE, as a way to say that IQ no longer mattered (as it was rising) but what really mattered was this BS called g”,

That you think Jensen originated the concept of g is part and parcel of your general misunderstanding of the concept. g long predates the Flynn effect.

“But this is not true either. Recent studies show that there is a .5 correlation with the FE and fluid g, but none with crystallized g.”

You’re confusing the idea that the FE is found primarily on tests of fluid g with the idea that the FE represents an actual rise in fluid g. (Egalitarians love to lecture about the differences between correlation and causation but are truly blind to it’s own application within their fantasy world.) We don’t see any of the latent gains associated with an actual increase in g. This is why Flynn doesn’t bother to explain the increases in terms of increases in brain power but rather in terms of shifting social priorities. Let’s quote Flynn himself:

“At one time, I was blind to the real-world significance of IQ gains because I was under the spell of g. I kept looking for general intelligence gains and could not find them. I could not see the trees because I was looking for a forest.”

Flynn does not believe the FE are gains in actual g. (No, he is not making some distinction between crystallized and fluid g here). Let’s quote Flynn again from a recent interview, talking about the FE here, not the black/white gap:

“The IQ gains are not g-loaded so the prediction is beside the point.”

Pretty straightforward.

“Blacks have reduced the achievement gap by 1/3. Furthermore, adult Black IQ’s have gone up. They have been going up three points a decade for 70 years.”

Actually, they haven’t been. The IQ gap stopped narrowing over 30 years ago. Flynn and Dickens support relies on ignoring tests that do not conform to their theory and assuming that childhood gains would hold until adulthood, something we know doesn’t occur. Clinging to childhood gains is an old egalitarian bit of statistical legerdemain because they know perfectly well that by age 17 the common gaps emerge.

By on 5/13/08 at 12:22 pm

“Right, but I am talking about psychometric tests.”

So am I.

“I am talking about reductions in your typical black ghetto type behaviors. Impressionistically, I think there is less of it when you take Blacks out of the ghetto…

Of course, “taking them out” is a nebulous phrase. One might say that a legitimate example of this are cases in which blacks earn their way out, in which case we would then risk reversing cause and effect. The Fair Housing Act and it’s attendant initiatives have created a large scale effort to effectively “pluck” ghetto families into suburban neighborhoods resulting in blocks of majority black suburban areas in some cities. These neighborhoods don’t go on to become beacons of civilization.

…and make them a minority in a White or even Hispanic community.”

Ah, but then they are still surrounded by other blacks my example so it doesn’t apply. Obviously, the key to black success is that they stay clear of other blacks. Interesting.

By on 5/13/08 at 12:40 pm

The “problem” with the distribution of Black intelligence could be fixed in a few generations with aggressive eugenics. Let smart Blacks run the program so that there’s no paranoia about genocide.

Blacks could leave an inheritance to their grandchildren worth more than any amount of money.

By CL on 7/9/08 at 6:49 pm