the case of the missing irish iq data

fierce tiger pointed out (thanks, 猛虎!) that ron unz writes:

“Lynn refutes my evidence for a low Ireland IQ during the 1970s by referring me to the more extensive data in his latest book, saying it debunks my claim. However, when I examined the Ireland IQs in that book (p. 402), I discovered that he had inexplicably failed to include the massive 1972 study of 3,466 students which established an Irish IQ of 87 and which had appeared in all of his previous books. When I asked him why he had excluded the largest early Irish IQ study, he said he had no answer, and that perhaps ‘this omission was a mistake.'”

well, that is weird, i agree.

i still wanna know, though — has anybody ever looked at the actual data from this 1972 study? i mean, evaluated the research — the testing and how it was conducted and so on. i’m not saying that the finding (average iq of the irish in 1972 was 87) is wrong. i just want to know if anybody’s — you know — double-checked it. did richard lynn actually check it personally?

as far as i can figure out, the only people who have seen the original data are the authors of the master’s thesis for which the data was collected — one enda byrt and one peter edward gill — plus jonn raven (note: not john c. raven). the data has not been published anywhere afaics — only in the master’s thesis itself, a copy of which can be found in the reference section in the library of a university in ireland. i discovered the reference for it in this paper by john raven: The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time [opens pdf]. (<< you might want to read that paper, ron, if you haven’t already.) i can’t find any academic traces of enda byrt, but gill seems to be teaching at a university in sweden.

here’s what john raven had to say about the irish data in his paper:

pgs. 5-6: “In 1972, Byrt and Gill (1973), working with the author [i.e. john raven], collected data from a nationally representative sample of 3,464 primary school children ages 5 to 11 in the Republic of Ireland. The urban norms seemed to corresponded [sic] to the 1938 Ipswich norms, although the figures for the rural areas lagged behind.”

pg. 9: “[N]orms for rural and isolated communities are typically lower than others. The previously mentioned norms for the Republic of Ireland and Newfoundland can, in this context, be seen to confirm this.”

pg. 32: “Thorndike suggests that television may have had an effect [on rising scores, a la the flynn effect]. However television was widely available in Ireland when what can now be seen to be low Irish norms were collected.”

so, according to raven, the data was nationally representative and so should be ok. maybe it is. i would feel a little better about it, though, if it had been publically published somewhere so that others — people who had not been involved in the data collection — could’ve had a look at it.

who cares? well, an argument is only as good as the data on which it’s based, right? (that statement is gonna bite me in the *ss one day, i just know it! (~_^) ) was the average iq of the irish in 1972 really 87? i’m leaning towards maybe/probably, but i’m not certain about it because i don’t feel secure about the data.

another argument entirely is whether or not a score of 87 in 1972 tells us anything about the average iq of the irish in 1840. or 1890. don’t think ron can extrapolate backwards from that 1972 score. i mean, if the current scores for the irish are correct, and say we didn’t have any iq scores for the irish from the 1970s, we never would’ve guessed the score back then (in the ’70s) had been so low. (if, indeed, it was so low.)

i still think that my — and anatoly’s — suggestion that there was a ca. 130 year brain drain in ireland that resulted in that low score, which just happens to coincide with the lowest point in their population stats btw, is pretty good. i suppose ron will continue to ignore that possibility. that’s certainly his prerogative.

(note: comments do not require an email. hi there!)

Advertisements

101 Comments

  1. I want it to be true because if so it provides an interesting anomaly and interesting anomalies are fun for theorizing about whereas if there’s something wrong with the data then there’s been no convergence so the whole debate is moot – and dull.

    Reply

  2. HBDChick: who cares? well, an argument is only as good as the data on which it’s based, right?…was the average iq of the irish in 1972 really 87? i’m leaning towards maybe/probably, but i’m not certain about it because i don’t feel secure about the data.

    That’s a perfectly valid question, though just as you indicate, all the particulars we have sound pretty solid. (Also don’t forget that Lynn himself had spent years doing personal research in Ireland around the same time, and although he never published his results, they were clearly consistent with a very low apparent IQ.) But I suspect that if the same sort of “strict scrutiny” were applied to most of Lynn’s other hundreds of collected IQ scores, the results would be far, far worse, certainly with regard to those astonishingly low IQ scores based on tiny samples in totally backward Third World countries.

    Or let’s just focus on Europe. Close to one-third of all of those IQ studies in Lynn (2002) came from the Buj (1981) collection, which I’ve heard was based on utterly non-representative samples from capital cities. Perhaps coincidentally, many of the Buj results are enormously higher than the other national samples we have for Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Netherlands, etc.

    So let me put this another way. I wouldn’t be surprised me if that 1972 Irish sample turns out to be more reliable (based on methodology, size, and representativeness) that 90% or 95% of all the IQ studies in Lynn (2002). So if you throw it away, pretty much all of Lynn’s results might probably follow it into the trashcan.

    Finally, I make no claims about the Irish IQ in 1840 or 1890. But since there’s an enormous amount of evidence that the current Irish IQ has been pretty close to 100 for the last decade, I’d really like to see some “biological” explanation for how it got there from 87 in just 30 years…

    Reply

  3. Well, Lynn isn’t exactly known for precision — which is why we get discrepancies such as:

    Lynn: “Ireland. In 1972, norms for the Standard Progressive Matrices were obtained for a sample of 3,466 a. to 13-year-olds.” Versus Raven: Byrt and Gill (1973), working with the author, collected data from a nationally representative sample of 3,464 primary school children ages 5 to 11 years in the Republic of Ireland”

    Somehow 5-11 year-olds transformed into 13 year-olds and 3,464 became 3,466. This is typical Lynn. Refer to Dienekes’ post, for example: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/08/richard-lynns-massaged-iq-data.html So I wouldn’t hang any theory on one of Lynn’s data points as does Ron.

    Reply

  4. @ron – “But I suspect that if the same sort of ‘strict scrutiny’ were applied to most of Lynn’s other hundreds of collected IQ scores, the results would be far, far worse….”

    well, i’m for checking it all! i don’t have a problem with that. a lot of work, of course, but it’s no good to base one’s hypotheses on dodgy data. i mean, you just checked lynn’s latest book and found that he skipped (or whatever) this irish data even though he used it several times before. dodgy. and if you hadn’t have double-checked, you might’ve bought lynn’s new numbers.

    and i’m not just talking about your hypothesis or even iq — i had a problem the other day with some folks doing research on consanguinity and pathogens and that they hadn’t really paid attention to some of the data. it can cause problems to say the least.

    @ron – “So if you throw it away, pretty much all of Lynn’s results might probably follow it into the trashcan.”

    well maybe that’s what needs to be done.

    @ron – “I’d really like to see some ‘biological’ explanation for how it got there from 87 in just 30 years…”

    40 years (1972 to 2012), no? either way, two generations roughly. couldn’t the numbers have gone up that much if there had’ve been a brain drain and the population was just bouncing back to its natural mean (in other words, not having to “evolve” some smart genes)? especially when the population increased by something like 35% in that time period (it went from 3 to 4.something million). that’s a lot of brains added to the mix.

    @ron – “don’t forget that Lynn himself had spent years doing personal research in Ireland around the same time, and although he never published his results, they were clearly consistent with a very low apparent IQ.”

    well, he needs to publish his data. we can’t go around developing theories based on lots o’ anecdotal evidence. and if he’s so convinced that the irish had such a low iq back in the ’70s, why’d he leave out that data now? (obviously only he can really answer that.)

    again, for the record, i lean towards believing the 1972 score, but i wish the data were more sound. well, i just wish someone would go have a look at it! someone other than the people involved in collecting it — or richard lynn. (~_^)

    Reply

  5. @chuck – “Somehow 5-11 year-olds transformed into 13 year-olds and 3,464 became 3,466.”

    hmmmm. i could live with getting the number of kids wrong by just two — but going from 5-11 year-olds to 13 year-olds is way too wrong. =/

    Reply

  6. Isn’t it important to take into account the age group from this study?

    Looking at the following data, which I believe derives from twin studies, heritability for IQ in the 5-11 age group ranges from .22 at the younger age to .54 at the older. Heritability at age 7 is .40. However, heritability in mid-life rises to .84.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/

    In other words, even those who buy the genetic IQ argument should expect environment to play a larger role than genes in the 5-11 age group that was tested in the Irish IQ study in question. To determine the maximum extent of the genetic effect on IQ it would then be necessary to focus on studies of mid-life IQ, not childhood IQ.

    Of course the environmental effect that seems strongest in children deserves attention as well. At the risk of being overly conciliatory and peacemaking–and I’m certainly no expert on this topic–it may be that both sides of the IQ debate are right, depending on the age group to which they are referring. After all, childhood performance differences can lead to significantly different life outcomes, and the economic consequences that follow from those, even if middle-age IQ turns out to be almost entirely determined by genetics.

    Unfortunately Lynn’s sloppiness in leaving this study out only serves to muddy the already murky waters.

    Reply

  7. i should say, master’s students are notorious for misunderstanding basic epidemiological concepts. It is scarcely believable, but I have had not one but several MSc students who genuinely thought ‘random samples’ meant ‘you ask him, you ask her, you’ve no plan, that means its random sampling’. The shocking thing is they published this research in journals. The reviewers must not have asked ‘when you say random sampling, what exactly, step by step, did you do to ensure this was random and not just haphazard sampling?”. Presumably reviewers thought this was just taken as a given. Not so!. I would be very suspicious of any low level (student theses including PhD theses) studies which have not been replicated and do not describe, word for word and step by step, what they mean by ‘random’ or ‘representative’ sampling.

    Reply

  8. “again, for the record, i lean towards believing the 1972 score”

    I tend to believe it *if* it was for particularly remote and rural areas as i worked with a lot of people like that in the early 80s although i’d find it harder to believe if it was said to be fully representative of the Republic as a whole – as i worked with Dubliners as well.

    .
    “I’d really like to see some “biological” explanation for how it got there from 87 in just 30 years…”

    Anecdatally i’ve seen a lot of 5 foot parents with 5′ 6″ kids and 5′ 8″ grand-kids within ethnic enclaves where immigrants from different parts of the same country intermarry (and similarly but less so in the same sort of enclaves where people are arranging marriages to their home villages). I’m sure a large part of that is nutrition and healthcare and mybe all of it but, purely anecdatally, huge jumps within one generation tapering off with later ones seem to me to happen often enough to make me wonder about double recessives being shed.

    Obviously, that’s height not IQ, but still. I find it interesting.

    Reply

  9. HBDChick: 40 years (1972 to 2012), no?

    Actually, I was thinking of the 2009 PISA scores and Ireland moving ahead of Britain, France, and Germany in per capita GDP by about 2000, so 30-40 years is a reasonable estimate.

    But unless Ireland underwent the greatest wave of race-replacement immigration in all recorded history during 1972-2000, with 100% of the newcomers drawn from the world’s highest IQ country, there’s just no f***ing way that would have raised mean Irish IQ by almost 15 points in thirty years…

    hmmmm. i could live with getting the number of kids wrong by just two — but going from 5-11 year-olds to 13 year-olds is way too wrong.

    Actually, the quote from Lynn has a typo: his book says 6- to 13-year-olds, which isn’t too different from the other description of the study.

    Anonymous: In other words, even those who buy the genetic IQ argument should expect environment to play a larger role than genes in the 5-11 age group that was tested in the Irish IQ study in question. To determine the maximum extent of the genetic effect on IQ it would then be necessary to focus on studies of mid-life IQ, not childhood IQ.

    That’s nice, but as I’ve already pointed out previously, with the sole exception of the 19 Buj (1981) IQ studies—which are doubtful and probably unreliable—absolutely ALL of Lynn’s European IQ studies involve children rather than adults. So what you’re basically saying is we should just throw Lynn’s IQ books in the trash. Fine with me, I suppose…

    Reply

  10. @ron – “there’s just no f***ing way that would have raised mean Irish IQ by almost 15 points in thirty years…”

    heh. (^_^)

    what i was wondering was not that the mean irish iq was raised in those thirty years, but that it regressed back to its natural mean in that time.

    see the difference?

    Reply

  11. @g.w. – “I tend to believe it *if* it was for particularly remote and rural areas as i worked with a lot of people like that in the early 80s although i’d find it harder to believe if it was said to be fully representative of the Republic as a whole….”

    sounds like there were both rural and urban kids sampled, and that the rural scores were lower. question then is: how many of each were sampled (and maybe which rural areas, i.e. how remote).

    Reply

  12. @anonymous – “Isn’t it important to take into account the age group from this study?

    Looking at the following data, which I believe derives from twin studies, heritability for IQ in the 5-11 age group ranges from .22 at the younger age to .54 at the older. Heritability at age 7 is .40.”

    that’s a very good point. sounds like we’d definitely want to know how many 5 year-olds vs. 11 year-olds, etc., etc., were tested.

    @ron – “absolutely ALL of Lynn’s European IQ studies involve children rather than adults. So what you’re basically saying is we should just throw Lynn’s IQ books in the trash.”

    maybe you wouldn’t have to throw out all the studies (just the crappy ones) — but maybe the ages of the kids tested should be factored in.

    Reply

  13. when I examined the Ireland IQs in that book (p. 402), I discovered that he had inexplicably failed to include the massive 1972 study of 3,466 students which established an Irish IQ of 87 and which had appeared in all of his previous books.

    And of course the entire Ron Unz Grand Unfied Theory Of IQ Progress rests squarely on that one single test.

    But, to repeat a point which has been made before but which nobody ever seems to respond to, there are all sorts of odd discrepancies in Lynn’s data.

    Lynn (in his initial data) has two data points for Poland. A 1979 study of 835 adults gave an IQ of 106, while a 1989 study of 4,000 school-children resulted in an IQ of 92. That is (or appears to be) a fourteen point drop in IQ in just a decade! What does Unz have to say about this? Nada.

    Lynn has two data points for Portugal. The first is a 1979 survey of 242 adults which gave a result of IQ 101. The second, in 1987, studied 807 children with a result of IQ = 88. This seems to show a drop in IQ of 13 points in less than a decade. The response of Ron Unz? None, so far.

    Crucially for the Unz theory about the passage of time and increasing urbanization causing an increase in IQ, both of these studies show a shift of “Irish magnitude” (about thirteen points) but in a downwards direction.

    Lynn has two data points for Sweden. In the first 205 adults scored an average of 104 in 1979. in 1988, 1,100 children could only manage a 97.

    Lynn has two data points for Uruguay. One found a IQ of 93, the other, 98. Both were conducted in the same year and both on adults.

    The logical conclusion is that there are a number of outliers (bad results, in plain English) in the data.

    Unz is grabbing hold of the one odd result which is congenial to his theory and waving his hand dismissively at all the others.

    Lynn data is here.
    http://www.isteve.com/iq_table.htm

    Reply

  14. absolutely ALL of Lynn’s European IQ studies involve children rather than adults

    As usual, Ron Unz is absolutely wrong. Everyone is free to clink on the link to Lynn’s data which I posted above.

    Reply

  15. I make no claims about the Irish IQ in 1840 or 1890. But since there’s an enormous amount of evidence that the current Irish IQ has been pretty close to 100 for the last decade, I’d really like to see some “biological” explanation for how it got there from 87 in just 30 years

    And I’d like t0 see you offer solid evidence and a decent argument for the case that Irish IQ was ever 87.

    If you’re going to rely on Lynn, I’d like you to notice that according to Lynn, it did NOT take Ireland 30 years to go from IQ 87 to IQ 98. Lynn has this occurring in just seven years.

    Unz, you are an ideologue. You’re not a rational thinker.

    Reply

  16. Unz@ ” unless Ireland underwent the greatest wave of race-replacement immigration in all recorded history during 1972-2000, with 100% of the newcomers drawn from the world’s highest IQ country, there’s just no f***ing way that would have raised mean Irish IQ by almost 15 points in thirty years”

    That’s true. And it is indisputable that Irish IQ was around 100 by the year 2000, and long before that.

    If you had a logical brain and an impartial temperament this would lead to the conclusion: “Hmm, wait a sec, this seems fishy – I bet that IQ 87 study was bogus”.

    If you had a logical brain and an impartial temperament, you would look at the IQ drop of almost fifteen points in Poland and Portugal in just a decade and think “Hang on, that can’t be right”.

    But since you do not have a logical brain, and since your obsession with the Irish IQ of forty years ago has nothing whatsoever to do with Irish IQ forty years ago and everything to do with your fondness for Hispanic immigration to the US today, you’re not going to make that conclusion. Screw logic, you’ve got money to make!

    Reply

  17. i still wanna know, though — has anybody ever looked at the actual data from this 1972 study? i mean, evaluated the research — the testing and how it was conducted and so on.

    Yes, I have. It is a well done and very large study, and compared with the British standardization from 1979 the IQ is 87.

    Somehow 5-11 year-olds transformed into 13 year-olds and 3,464 became 3,466

    You made a mistake here. IQ&tWoN calls it a sample of “6- to 13-year-olds”. This is correct. Raven’s “5 to 11” claim is incorrect. 3,464, however, is the correct sample size.

    When I asked him why he had excluded the largest early Irish IQ study, he said he had no answer, and that perhaps ‘this omission was a mistake.’”

    In the latest book Lynn lazily attributes several references to (Carr 1993) which is a summary of three Irish Raven’s standardizations showing the Flynn Effect, including the Gill study. This reference would have presumably been attributed to Carr as well, but due to sloppy editing two of the references are repeated, and the Gill reference appears to be the casualty (p. 422).

    Lynn’s sloppiness is frequently aggravating.

    Reply

  18. From the Raven paper linked to above:

    In 1963–1965 Skanes tested 4,017 children ages
    9 to 14 years in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The similarity between Skanes’
    results and the 1938 Ipswich norms is striking (J. Raven, 1981). Later, in
    1967, in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Skanes tested the entire population
    (2,097) of children ages 10 to 14 years. The results consistently lagged behind
    the Ipswich norms.

    That seems rather tantalizing. The results were lower in 1967 than in 1963-65. How much lower and what explains the change? It would seem important, but Raven merely notes it and moves on.

    Just how much variability is there in IQ testing?

    Reply

  19. @frank – “Lynn (in his initial data) has two data points for Poland. A 1979 study of 835 adults gave an IQ of 106, while a 1989 study of 4,000 school-children resulted in an IQ of 92. That is (or appears to be) a fourteen point drop in IQ in just a decade! What does Unz have to say about this? Nada….” etc., etc.

    all excellent points! thanks, frank. i would like to see ron answer them, too.

    along with all of those, there are other anomalies that don’t seem to fit his hypothesis either, for instance how the finnish started off rural back in finland and still are rural in the u.s. today but have, apparently, always had a high average iq. no urbanness required. kirkpatrick, who ron referenced, even commented on how bright the finnish immigrants were and wondered if it had something to do with eugenical practices back in finland, i.e. that finnish ministers refused to marry any individuals who were obviously stupid. (~_^) (who knows where kirkpatrick got that from!)

    Reply

  20. @frank – “As usual, Ron Unz is absolutely wrong. Everyone is free to clink on the link to Lynn’s data which I posted above.”

    thanks!

    Reply

  21. That Raven paper is quite interesting.

    The Irish IQ scores were not 87 in 1972. The 87 figure is what resulted when the 1972 Irish results were recalculated against the 1979 British (re)standardization.

    Raven notes, but does not explain, an apparent sudden and world-wide (or at least Western-world wide) sharp rise in IQ in the late 1970’s. Prior to this, studies in Canada, the US, England and Ireland all agreed on the validity of the “Ipswich Norms”.

    As late as 1979—40 years after the test was published—therefore, there was little to suggest a secular increase in scores. Quite the contrary: everything suggested stability

    Note that the supposedly very low Irish test scores did not strike Raven that way in 1972. Saith Raven: – The [Irish] urban norms seemed to corresponded to the 1938 Ipswich norms, although the figures for the rural areas lagged behind

    And then ….

    From 1979 onward the story began to change. In that year, Kratzmeier and Horn (1979) reported norms from a large German study which were well above those obtained in England in 1938. Melhorn’s (1980) East German data were similar. The 1979 British norms, compiled (with the aid of a Social Science Reserch Council grant and assistance from the Government Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) from a carefully drawn sample designed to represent both the whole of Great Britain and the socioeconomic variance within it, appeared to be broadly similar to those obtained in the two German studies (J. Raven, 1981). Holmes (1980) reported results for British Columbia (Canada) which were similar to, if slightly lower than, the 1979 UK national norms. Both the Australian Council for Educational Research (see de Lemos, 1984, 1989) and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (1984) reported closely corresponding results for their respective countries.

    That’s really remarkable, and would seem to raise an enormous amount of questions. Still, whatever else can be said about all this, the notion that a large high-quality IQ test of Irish children in 1972 found them to have an IQ of 87 is simply untrue. (Unless you also accept that a study of American school children in 1958 produced a similar result) And after 1979 the Irish IQ tests – measured against the new standard – produced results in the mid to upper 90’s, normal for a white Western country.

    The bad news for Unz is that his notions about Irish IQ are wrong. The good news for Unz is that there is evidence of a rise in IQ, but affecting everybody and not just the Irish.

    .

    Reply

  22. Frank
    “Note that the supposedly very low Irish test scores did not strike Raven that way in 1972. Saith Raven: – The [Irish] urban norms seemed to corresponded to the 1938 Ipswich norms, although the figures for the rural areas lagged behind

    So the Irish urban norms were similar to English urban norms while the Irish rural norms lagged behind? Let’s say for the sake of argument the Irish rural norms were the same as the English rural norms.

    So, logically speaking and picking random numbers to illustrate the point, if the Irish population at the time was made up of 80% rural and 20% urban while the English population was 80% urban and 20% rural there’d be a big difference in the *average* national IQ even though both urban and both rural populations had the same average IQ?

    The same thing might apply elsewhere to a varying degree except seemingly tapering off among people from the extremes of the lattitude range e.g. very urban African-Americans and very rural Finns.

    Reply

  23. @Greying Wanderer “Anecdatally i’ve seen a lot of 5 foot parents with 5′ 6″ kids and 5′ 8″ grand-kids within ethnic enclaves where immigrants from different parts of the same country intermarry” I see that kind of thing all the time. I doubt it’s nutrition. I had a gread grand uncle or fourth cousin thrice removed or something who was extemely short. But the family was and had long been extremely prosperous. And the man was healthy. Indeed he was quite the war hero at the time. The change in height might be from shedding recessive deleterious homozygosity but that means both parents would have to have different genes for the same shortness in every community before they started mixing. And modern searches for such alleles have come up essentialy negative. I suspect a kind of general heterozygote advantage that entails other things or course but might be quite real. Height is not so great an advantage except that it makes you imposing compared with the next guy. Sort of like peacock feathers. But something realted to hybrid vigor could well be at work.

    By the way, you mentioned the 2008 article in DISCOVER. Somehow I have lost track of the reference, and I was going to look it up. Could you mention it again?

    Reply

  24. “The change in height might be from shedding recessive deleterious homozygosity but that means both parents would have to have different genes for the same shortness in every community before they started mixing. And modern searches for such alleles have come up essentialy negative.”

    Yes, that only occurred to me today. Each enclosed ancient-valley population would need their own version.

    .
    “Could you mention it again?”

    This one?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/02/why-cousin-lookin-fertile/

    Reply

  25. “Height is not so great an advantage except that it makes you imposing compared with the next guy. Sort of like peacock feathers.”

    Yes, that’s the other thing i wonder about height – is maybe being shorter is better from a calorie point of view? If so maybe it’s a beneficial adaptation as long as you’re not competing with other males for females i.e. in a valley where everyone is short. Then again, if the cost of a large brain is high then evolution might select for the lowest average IQ a population needed to survive so an IQ-depressing adaptation might be beneficial too in the right i.e. relatively simple, environment.

    Reply

    1. @ Greying Wanderer “if the cost of a large brain is high then evolution might select for the lowest average IQ a population needed to survive so an IQ-depressing adaptation might be beneficial too in the right i.e. relatively simple, environment.” Yes, very reasonable. Indeed, since there are not very many bright animals out there, that must be the way evolution goes a lot. They say Neanderthal brains were bigger, of course the structure may have differered enough to the comparison is invalid. But they say (very quietly) that earlier Homo sapiens had bigger brains than we do. If so, that would very much support your idea.

      Reply

  26. @Linton
    Yes if the mechanism for a trait getting fixed in a population depends a bit on whether it’s beneficial or deleterious then the assumption of whether a change is good or bad – in the context of where it evolved – is an important one.

    Reply

  27. didn’t a lot of the higher IQ/more educated Irish emigrate out? isn’t that still the way there – isn’t it one of the few/only countries with a smaller population now than it had 100 or 150 years ago?

    Reply

  28. “didn’t a lot of the higher IQ/more educated Irish emigrate out?”

    that’s the simplest explanation.

    Reply

  29. Frank,

    “If you’re going to rely on Lynn, I’d like you to notice that according to Lynn, it did NOT take Ireland 30 years to go from IQ 87 to IQ 98. Lynn has this occurring in just seven years.”

    This reminds me of this paper, from Rushton & Jensen “The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap” where they note :

    “In order to re-examine the Black-White differences over the last 54 years, we calculate mean Black IQs from the formula IQ=MA/CA×100, with the White mean set at 100. From the 1954 Georgia study (Osborne, 1967, p. 385), the mean IQ for Black 8th graders (14-year-olds) was 86 (12/14×100), and in 1965, 81 (11.3/14×100). From the 1966 Coleman Report, the mean IQ for Black 12-year-olds was 87 (10.4/12×100); for 15-year-olds, 84 (12.6/15×100); and for 18-year-olds, 82 (14.7/18×100). From the 1975 NAEP tests, the mean IQ for Black 13-year-olds was 70 (9/13×100), and for 17-year-olds, 71 (12/17×100); from the 2008 NAEP tests, for Black 13-year-olds, 85 (11/13×100); and for 17-year-olds, 77 (13/17×100). These results indicate no Black gain in either mean IQ or in educational achievement for over 50 years.”

    You can see that, between 1966 and 1975, the black IQ dropped from 85 to 70, then rose to 85 in 2008. Yes, a drop of 15 IQ points in just 9 years, and strangely enough the drop occurs just after the dismantlement of Jim Crow “era” from when we should have expected to find a substantial increase of the black IQ, but no, the black IQ dropped by 15 points. As far as I know, neither Murray or Rushton have ever tried to explain this anomaly. (hope my english is readable)

    Reply

    1. @ (Sorry, your name came only as two little sqares. I it Jan te Nijenhuisie Henk van der Flier? I would think probably not since my internet engine would easily recognize those.) At all events you remarked “a drop of 15 IQ points in just 9 years, and strangely enough the drop occurs just after the dismantlement of Jim Crow “era” from when we should have expected to find a substantial increase of the black IQ” I really hesitate to make generalizations about groups of which I am not a member. I’ll go on about English, Scots, Scotch Irish and Southerners because I have such roots. But let me give you, however reluctantly, my view on Blacks. It seems to me that Blacks are real people with real feelings, in fact very strong feelings. This proposition seems to be to be ignored by people who want to exploit them politically by making professional victims of them.

      So how would you feel? Your ancestors were taken (not, I might mention, by American Southerners, but more like New Englanders and Portugese) from their ancestral homes and brought to a land which was nice enough but where they were undeniably at a disadvantage right off the bat. They were victims of chattel slavery. But they were also victims of a terrible culutral discontinuity. Their religion was gone. Language gone. Ancestral ties gone. An effort was made to provide them with an identity. This included the religion of their owners (which was not the religion of their captors). It included an interest in their music and humor. They responded gallantly, valliantly. Their “spirituals” were part of the Jim Crow era and worse times before, but to my ear they are still the most beautiful music ever composed. They built Monticello, the Capitol building and the graceful southern mansions. Except for some autere colonial dwellings (the best of which was Mount Vernon, also built by Blacks) those buildings are the only archetecture in the US that has not been simply crude or ostenatatious. (Sure, there was European coaching, but the real work, and I’ll promise you the details of design were Black.) They produced wonderful humor.

      Then suddenly in the 1950’s and since they were told that these things were not just irrelevant. They were evil. Talk about hurt feelings. It was criminal.

      A couple of things have endured. One is their love of contact sports. The nice thing about contact sports is that nobody need feel bad about losing. Another time, another place and it could have been different. For people who are senstive and have strong feelings it is something into which they can put all their aggression, all their energy. And they still are really good at ti.

      Another is their love of words. My grandfather, the first man to graduate from Wofford college with all A’s, (my uncle was the second) was a preacher. He had a copy of the Bible that was King James on one page and Martin Luther’s translation on the facing page. This was a man who was good with language. One day a black man mentioned a “boloform.” Granddaddy didn’t recognize the word and was promplty told it was African for “elephant.” It isn’t it’s English. “Bolus” is a mass of chewed food. “‘-form” is a combining term meaning “shaped like.” It means a shapeless mass. It is a most felicitous term for an elephant. So who was smarter, the best White mind South Carolina had ever seen, or this humble Black man? Indeed I have yet to find a White PhD who immediately understood the word. But the Black man was too polite, too eager not to hurt anyone’s feelings, to point it out and came up with the dodge that it was African. He probably didn’t even know that there is more than one African language.

      It is not an isolated event. A Black housekeeper mentioned that her neighbor had a feist. Most White Americans know the word feisty but do not know that a small yapping dog is a feist. Again, a Black clerk, a teenager helping me as I shopped for a chess set said, “What pattern?” “The usual.” “Well we have Royal Doulton over here. It’s a very popular design, but of course you know that.” She had in fact offered me a chance to show off my sophistication, but I alas I had none.

      Blacks, it seems, simply love words. And what is an IQ test? It’s a language test. Even mathematics is a language, so of course the scores on the verbal and mathematical parts of the test correlate.

      But Blacks don’t put their hearts into IQ tests. That’s showing off your brain. It means putting other people down where it counts. If somebody indicates you are dumb it is a far worse insult than that you lack coordination. And Blacks have real feelings.

      So I tend to hold my piece when the question of Black IQ comes up. But since you bring up the issue that there are anomalies in the results I would like to respond, “Sure. There ought to be.”

      Reply

  30. So the Irish urban norms were similar to English urban norms while the Irish rural norms lagged behind?

    That’s a little unclear on Ravens’s part. “The Irish poor and rural norms lagged behind the Ipswich Norm”, is the most sensible reading of that. How did poor and rural English compare to the Ipswich Norm? We don’t know the answer to that.

    Reply

  31. We know what countries with an average IQ of 87 look like. They are violent dysfunctional, semi-failed states. A good example would be (ahem) Mexico, with a national IQ currently estimated as 85.

    A country with an average IQ of 87 is going to contain significant numbers of people with an IQ of less than 80, and such people seem to have trouble grasping the idea that actions have consequences. So if Ireland in 1972 did indeed possess a national IQ of 87, this should have been reflected in a variety of social problems and in particular by a high crime rate. Some parts of the country should have been virtually lawless, as parts of Mexico (and American inner cities) are today.

    But in fact, Ireland in the 1940’s, ’50’s, 60’s and ’70’s was one of the most stable, peaceful and bucolic places on Earth. Not only was violent crime not high, it was exceptionally low. England and Wales at the time were also peaceful and civilized places, but they were dens of violent iniquity compared to Ireland.

    http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/2144/1/jssisiVolXXVII_135175.pdf

    Reply

  32. [Blacks] built Monticello, the Capitol building and the graceful southern mansions. Except for some autere colonial dwellings (the best of which was Mount Vernon, also built by Blacks) those buildings are the only archetecture in the US that has not been simply crude or ostenatatious. (Sure, there was European coaching, but the real work, and I’ll promise you the details of design were Black.)

    You’re making a fool of yourself.

    The design work for the Capitol building was done by several men, none of whom were black. Monticello was designed by Thomas Jefferson. He wasn’t black.

    Then suddenly in the 1950′s and since they were told that these things were not just irrelevant. They were evil.

    Really? In the 1950’s blacks “were told” that the English language, Christianity, spirituals, music etc “were irrelevant” and “evil”?

    Whoever placed this nonsense in your unsuspecting head deserves a good whipping.

    Reply

    1. @ Frank “Whoever placed this nonsense in your unsuspecting head deserves a good whipping.”

      Possibly so, possibly so. Around here we don’t do that sort of thing much any longer, but who’s to deny human diversity? I gather two points. The first is that the archtects designed those buildings. That, of course, is what they were paid to do. But going from a design to an accomplished result it not all that straight forward. The Spanish archetect Gaudi designed some marvelous buildings, but the ones who could make it work, who solved the engineering and esthetic challenges posed by the design are said to have been the men on the construction site. It seems to me in earlier times this may have been true and possibly more so. I have forgotten who told me, so I cannot send him around for your flageilation. I hear that even now when some traffic planner decides where to put a sign a few men in a truck show up at the site and say, “All right. Where are we going to put this thing?”

      The other point, that things like spirituals were considered evil, finds me on rather more solid ground. I was in New England in the 1960’s. When the conversation turned to how vile the treatment of Blacks had always been it came with an emotional charge that bothered me. When I had to temerity to say, “But they accomplished great things,” it was always somehow morphed into another form of exploitation. If it bothered me, how do you think the Blacks felt?

      I’m not trying to rewrite history. I’m just trying to get into the mind of a Black person. Maybe I shouldn’t try.

      Reply

  33. Frank
    “That’s a little unclear on Ravens’s part.”

    Really? It seems exceptionally clear to me.

    “So the Irish urban norms were similar to English urban norms while the Irish rural norms lagged behind?”

    The Irish urban norms were similar to English urban norms while the rural norms lagged behind.

    Now we don’t know what the English rural norms were but if the English / Irish urban norms were the same then i think it’s at least reasonable to assume the rural norms were the same also – either way it doesn’t change the main arithmetical point which is even if both the English / Irish urban norms and the English / Irish rural norms were identical there could be still be a large gap in the *national* average IQ if the proportions of urban / rural were different.

    The reason for going on about it is i think the same argument may apply to other anomalies across the same latitudes e.g. Balkans, whether for dull rural to urban migration reasons or interesting inbreeding genetic ones.

    Reply

  34. there is some evidence they are better with words than logic or maths. By the way, the plural of anecdote is not data.

    Reply

  35. “didn’t a lot of the higher IQ/more educated Irish emigrate out?”

    that’s the simplest explanation.

    I think you you meant to say: “That’s the simplest explanation for why the speculative hypothesis we are kicking around – that Ireland had or has a lower IQ than neighboring countries – might be explained, if it were true”.

    But since the hypothesis is false, it’s an explanation in search of a problem.

    Reply

  36. The Irish urban norms were similar to English urban norms while the rural norms lagged behind.

    Behind the English urban norms. Yes, fair enough.

    there could be still be a large gap in the *national* average IQ if the proportions of urban / rural were different.

    That’s true. Or at least, it’s true that there would be a gap. A large gap? A 13 IQ point gap? No. Assuming equal urban scores in both countries and a different urban/rural mix between England and Ireland, we’d be looking a a difference of two or three points.

    When AE looked at the urban/rural difference in IQ in white ethnic groups in the US, he found it to be about five or six points. That’s the upper bound to the gap you mention, one which would only apply if 100% of Englishmen lived in urban areas and 100% of Irishmen in rural areas.

    Reply

    1. @ Frank. “That’s the upper bound to the gap you mention, one which would only apply if 100% of Englishmen lived in urban areas and 100% of Irishmen in rural areas.” And that would at least at first blush seem very odd. In England those who could afford it seem to have preferred living in the country. I am told that in earlier times in New York when a man of English descent got rich he immediately moved to a place in the country and lived in peace. When a man of Dutch descent got rich he immediatly moved down town and got on every committee he could. That’s the rich, of course. Might not be statitically significant.

      Reply

  37. The Spanish archetect Gaudi designed some marvelous buildings, but the ones who could make it work, who solved the engineering and esthetic challenges posed by the design are said to have been the men on the construction site

    It is precisely the job of the architect to solve the engineering and esthetic challenges involved in his design. You are mistaken in your belief that the architect doodles a pretty picture on a piece of paper and then leaves it up to “the men on the construction site” to figure out how to make this a reality.

    Please stop talking about matters you know nothing about.

    Reply

    1. @ Frank @ “You are mistaken in your belief that the architect doodles a pretty picture on a piece of paper and then leaves it up to “the men on the construction site” to figure out how to make this a reality.” I’m not telling you how to feel. I’m trying to imagine what a Black man might feel. Here, for instance, is a bit from Wikipedia. “Gaudí rarely drew detailed plans of his works, instead preferring to create them as three-dimensional scale models and molding the details as he was conceiving them.” Quite true, it’s not a doodle on a piece of paper. Still I think there was some work to be done along the lines of making it work. I can imagine those doing such work taking proper pride. Can you not?

      Reply

  38. “But unless Ireland underwent the greatest wave of race-replacement immigration in all recorded history during 1972-2000, with 100% of the newcomers drawn from the world’s highest IQ country, there’s just no f***ing way that would have raised mean Irish IQ by almost 15 points in thirty year.”

    Ron,

    You are conflating IQ samples with National IQs. The latter are estimated by but not identical with the former. Just because the Irish age 5-11 Raven’s performance was 87 in 1972, It does not follow that the Irish National IQ was also 87 in the same year. National IQs represent the latent cognitive abilities of nations (See: Rindermann, 2007). As latent abilities (which may or may not represent aggregate g-factor level differences; see Steppan 2010), they can not by definition be measured directly. Rather, they are estimated from, or measured by, the scores of samples. We can take Sudan as an example. In 2009 alone, the scores, based on large representative normative samples ranged from 67 to 86. No one would conclude from this that the Sudanese National IQ was both 67 and 86 in 2009.. This would make no sense, given what “National IQ” means. Nor would anyone conclude that the studies were flawed on account of the sample IQs varying greatly. One might if the same types of measures were used and if the samples had the same demographic characteristics. But they didn’t. Rather the correct conclusion is that in 2009 Sudanese Adults perform 14 points worse than the UK norms on WAIS, that Sudanese adolescents perform 33 points worse on Raven’s, and that the cross sample lower performance is evidence of lower latent cognitive abilities on the national level, of a magnitude best estimated by the aggregate score difference.

    Now as with Sudan as with Ireland. The only difference is that the Irish sample IQs under discussion come from different years. This leaves open the possibility that the difference was due to a large cross-temporal increase in Irish National IQ (i.e., true latent National ability). The possibility. But you have not established this to be the case. The Irish sample IQ of 87 in 1972 relative to the Irish sample IQ of 95 in 2000, could represent the same type of intra-national variance that the 2009 Sudanese sample IQ of 67 in relation to the sample IQ of 86 in does. The way to determine which is to find more data. If other Irish samples from the 70s (or before) point more to a score below 90 than above, then it’s reasonable to infer that the latent Irish National ability was below 90 at this time. That said, there is no escaping the fact that the IQ samples, in aggregate, are well below 100 (Lynn’s estimate of about 93 seems correct). So if the international achievement samples are taken as an index of contemporaneous Irish IQ, the difference would represent an increase of at least 7 or so points. I’m not disputing this point. Just the inference that the National IQ — as opposed to Raven’s score –in the 70s was below 90.

    Now, the distinction between National IQ and Sample IQs, between latent ability and imperfect measures, should be obvious. But apparently it’s not. Hence, HBDChick says:

    “HBDChick: who cares? well, an argument is only as good as the data on which it’s based, right?…was the average iq of the irish in 1972 really 87? i’m leaning towards maybe/probably, but i’m not certain about it because i don’t feel secure about the data”

    And another commenter says:

    “You can see that, between 1966 and 1975, the black IQ dropped from 85 to 70, then rose to 85 in 2008. Yes, a drop of 15 IQ points in just 9 years, and strangely enough the drop occurs just after the dismantlement of Jim Crow “era” from when we should have expected to find a substantial increase of the black IQ, but no, the black IQ dropped by 15 points. As far as I know, neither Murray or Rushton have ever tried to explain this anomaly. (hope my english is readable)”

    Both of these comments demonstrate a failure to grasp the concept of measurement error — in this case, measurement error on the population or national level. We measure population differences by aggregate sample differences. Typically by meta-analysis. Variance between samples, when not systematic, is error. The “Black IQ” like the “Sudanese IQ” is not bouncing around 15-20 points in 0 to 10 years; The “bounce” is due to variance between samples due to differences in measures, etc.

    Reply

    1. @ Chuck “The “Black IQ” like the “Sudanese IQ” is not bouncing around 15-20 points in 0 to 10 years; The “bounce” is due to variance between samples due to differences in measures, etc” Sure. Has to be. I also suspect feelings and attitudes may be in the “etc.” A genetic change of 15-20 IQ points does sound impossible. But attitudes can change very fast. I’m not saying “don’t bother measuring IQ’s, any effect is swamped by subjective factors.” But it doesn’t seem simple. All right. Assume violence is a direct product of low IQ. Go to Sudan and expect to find the lowest IQ measured in places with the most violence. Now how do you extract any genetic component of the test result from effects of how hard it is to concentrate if you and your loved ones are in danger?
      Yeah, I know. I’m starting to sound PC. But I’m not a nihilist when it comes to measures of IQ, just uncertain about where the whole truth lies.

      Reply

  39. I’m not telling you how to feel. I’m trying to imagine what a Black man might feel.

    I am not interested i discussing your feelings, my feelings, of the feelings of your hypothetical black person. I am not interested in discussing feelings, period.

    Still I think there was some work to be done along the lines of making it work.

    The person doing the work “along the lines of making it work’ was Gaudí, as you would know if you took the effort the actually read the wikipedia article you citing.

    Reply

    1. @Frank “I am not interested i discussing your feelings, my feelings” No reason you should be. Can’t say I’m all that interested myself.

      “The person doing the work “along the lines of making it work’ was Gaudí, ” Well in the absence of detailed drawing (and I fail to see where the article contradicts the lead) and since they are still working on one of his projects and since Gaudi is dead, may I assume that you believe in spirit visitations?

      Reply

  40. Chuck – Just because the Irish age 5-11 Raven’s performance was 87 in 1972, It does not follow that the Irish National IQ was also 87 in the same year.

    I have to point out that the Irish age 5-11 Raven’s performance was not 87 in 1972. I don’t exactly what it was, but it was not 87. The 87 figure was arrived at by taking the score from that 1972 study and “normalizing” it against the new British norm computed in 1979. I agree with your larger point about test results sometimes just being wrong.

    It would be interesting to know what an Ipswich Norm score of 100 would be after the 1979 changes. I can’t seem to find that information anywhere though.

    Reply

  41. chuck, you are possibly right, but I never claimed that black intelligence “really” dropped by 15 points between 1966 and 1975, and then rose by 15 points. But this is what the figures show. Anyway, I always thought that it was an anomaly.

    P.S.
    By the way, have you checked your spam box recently, chuck ? I left 2 comments on your blog (a while ago) but none of them appeared.

    Reply

  42. @Frank “I am not interested i discussing your feelings, my feelings” No reason you should be. Can’t say I’m all that interested myself.

    Then why do you keep talking about feelings, Linton?

    since Gaudi is dead, may I assume that you believe in spirit visitations?

    Unless you think that Thomas Jefferson was dead when he built Monticello, or that Gaudi was dead when he built the Casa Batlló, I’m not sure where you think you are going with this. You don’t have the foggiest understanding of what an architect does. Monticello, the US Capitol, and stately colonial buildings were not designed by blacks. That is just a fact, and your feelings in the subject are irrelevant.

    Reply

    1. @Frank “your feelings in the subject are irrelevant” I thought we had agreed that feelilngs didn’t interest us. I just broached the issue when somebody had an anomaly. since then I’ve been trying to answer challenges. That doesn’t mean they aren’t valid challenges. But it doesn’t mean that this is a major interest of mine.

      Whether the current function of an architect is the same as what it was a couple of centuries ago if indeed not clear to me. The stories I hear are of ambitious structures have their design changed as they are built and the archetect involved with the construction process, which would mean consultling on the spot. But they’re just stories. One fact I can offer. They excavated a temple in Greece and found a cup with the words, “I belong to Phidias,” who was known to be the architect. One might suppose he was right there, that is unless somebody had stolen his cup of course.

      A more recent story I saw on TV. Some folks were building a snow hotel. They pointed out smugly that the arches were in cantinary form, that the pointy Gothic style was in error. A few minutes later they showed a man repaiting a place where the cantinary curve had failed. It looked like a Gothic arch would not have failed. This time they didn’t change the design, of course.

      Perhaps a modern archetect confines himself to design and never consults with the foreman during construction, maybe not. I make no claim. And as I said, from the past i know only stories (and so archeology of the pyramids as described by John Romer in Ancient Egypt). Didn’t somebody just say, “the pleural of anecdote is not data”?

      Reply

  43. @LInton Herbert “Sure. Has to be. I also suspect feelings and attitudes may be in the “etc.” A genetic change of 15-20 IQ points does sound impossible. But attitudes can change very fast. I’m not saying “don’t bother measuring IQ’s, any effect is swamped by subjective factors.” But it doesn’t seem simple. All right. Assume violence is a direct product of low IQ. Go to Sudan and expect to find the lowest IQ measured in places with the most violence. Now how do you extract any genetic component of the test result from effects of how hard it is to concentrate if you and your loved ones are in danger?
    Yeah, I know. I’m starting to sound PC. But I’m not a nihilist when it comes to measures of IQ, just uncertain about where the whole truth lies”

    Herb,

    When it comes to the African AMerican-White differential, you can read my summation of the findings here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-facts-that-need-to-be-explained/ In the US, Blacks are less intelligent than Whites (by about the magnitude of the differences between random individuals). This is established. It’s theoretically possible that the IQ score differences between Africans in Africa and Europeans in European or between Europeans in different European countries or between Africans and Europeans in Europe or between Africans and Europeans in Africa are no more than score differences. Or that they are lower level ability differences (e.g., Quantitative knowledge, Reading and writing, and Reaction and decision Speed). The necessary statistical tests have NOT been conducted to rule out this possibility. No one really knows what they represent, let alone if they are commensurate with latent general ability differences. Except in isolated instances where the proper tests have been conducted (e.g., Blacks and Whites in South African and in the Netherlands). National IQ differences could resemble secular differences or test-retest differences — not being “true” intelligence differences, defined as differences in general mental ability, g, the first factor, or stratum III. This isn’t a possibility for the Blacks-White difference in the US; that is a bona fide difference in intelligence. What’s debated is the cause. In principle, the cause could be cultural, biological-environmental, or genetic. Most likely it’s a mix of all three. But regardless of the cause, that difference is real.

    Reply

    1. @ Chuck. “In principle, the cause could be cultural, biological-environmental, or genetic. Most likely it’s a mix of all three. But regardless of the cause, that difference is real”
      That makes sense. And I have an idea of why my own experience might be in error. I heard a Black man say once, “On average a Black man is no better a natural athlete than a White. It’s just a wider spread. You read about one end of the scale in the newspapers. You don’t here from the other end much.” Maybe he’s right. I have no information. I would suppose that information on IQ would be available from the studies you cite and since I have never heard it mentioned, likely it is not there. One way or another, I could selectively be rememering unusually bright people. No contol. As they say, it has been proven many times that beating a drum will restore the sun after an eclipse. You’ve got to have a control. What happens when you don’t beat the drum? And what about all those folks I’ve never met?
      Thanks for the clarification.

      Reply

  44. I have to point out that the Irish age 5-11 Raven’s performance was not 87 in 1972. I don’t exactly what it was, but it was not 87. The 87 figure was arrived at by taking the score from that 1972 study and “normalizing” it against the new British norm computed in 1979.

    Once again Raven’s “ages 5-11” is incorrect.

    I’m not sure I’m following your complaint. All the world IQ scores are calculated on the most chronological British test norm. The only way this Irish score has been modified is that 2 points have been added to correct for the 7 years of Flynn Effect. The two standardizations are especially comparable because they occurred so close in time.

    British scores on the Standard Progressive Matrices increased by almost 11 points between the 1938 and 1979 standardizations. If we calculate the 1972 Irish scores on the 1938 norms and subtract 10 points to correct for the 34 years of Flynn Effect, we get the same IQ.

    An adequate analysis of Irish intelligence test research has yet to be done. I have about 40-50 studies and standardizations from Ireland, so I know there is enough data for some better conclusions. Until there is more to discuss it’s best not to get overly invested in these debates.

    Reply

  45. @LInton Herbert “But it doesn’t seem simple. All right. Assume violence is a direct product of low IQ. Go to Sudan and expect to find the lowest IQ measured in places with the most violence. Now how do you extract any genetic component of the test result from effects of how hard it is to concentrate if you and your loved ones are in danger?”

    You’re confusing issues. Question (1): Is there an IQ score difference? Method of resolving: Meta-analysis. Question (2): Does this score differences represent a latent ability differences (or is it an artifact of psychometric bias e.g., anxiety, motivation, improper testing conditions, etc.). Method of resolving: Factor analysis. Question (3): Does this latent ability difference represent a general ability difference (e.g., stratum III as opposed to an agglomeration of I or II)? Method of resolving: Factor analysis or meta analysis of method of correlated vector results. Question (4): Is this general ability difference biologically caused or robustly biological? Method of resolving: Neuro-imaging, Question (5): Is this robustly biological general ability difference genetically conditioned to any appreciable degree? Method of resolving: structural equation modeling, GWAS heritability study, or admixture mapping. Whether score differences are the products of affective as opposed to latent ability differences (question 2 and 3), is answerable by factor analysis. Whether any latent ability differences are due to genetics, is a distinct issue.

    Reply

    1. @ Chuck “Question (2): Does this score differences represent a latent ability differences (or is it an artifact of psychometric bias e.g., anxiety, motivation, improper testing conditions, etc.). Method of resolving: Factor analysis.” Yes, that sounds right.

      Reply

  46. @frank – “We know what countries with an average IQ of 87 look like. They are violent dysfunctional, semi-failed states.”

    i suggest that there are other reasons — in additon to the iq ones — behind the levels violence and dysfunctionality we see in different populations. human biodiversity is not only a matter of iq.

    Reply

  47. @chuck – “Both of these comments demonstrate a failure to grasp the concept of measurement error….”

    for the record, i do understand that having a couple of hundred data sets for irish iq would be way better than just having one — and that the one that we have can’t tell us truly what the irish iq in the 1970s was — but since it’s the only one we’ve got (except for the 40 or 50 that jason, apparently, has)….

    Reply

  48. I’m not sure I’m following your complaint.

    It’s an observation, not a complaint.

    The only way this Irish score has been modified is that 2 points have been added to correct for the 7 years of Flynn Effect.

    Assuming you’re correct that’s quite remarkable, since it would mean that the Ipswich Norm score of those Irish children was 85.

    And that’s remarkable because, according to Raven, “The urban
    norms seemed to corresponded to the 1938 Ipswich norms, although the figures
    for the rural areas lagged behind.”

    This seems to say that the urban areas in Ireland had Ipswich Norm scores of something close to 100, while the rural areas “lagged behind”. If that’s the correct understanding of Ravens words, then the rural areas of Ireland must have :”lagged behind” by a truly staggering amount, something on the order of twenty points or more!

    It’s also remarkable because Raven mentions the Irish IQ tests as being part of a series of tests which demonstrated the (at the time) continuing validity of the Ipswich Norms.

    In 1952, Adams reported norms from 11,621 12-year-old children in Surrey, England. These data were, within the limits of sampling error, very similar to Raven’s 1938 (Ipswich) norms. Tuddenham, Davis, Davison, and Schindler (1958), in one of the few studies which attempted to establish the appropriateness or otherwise of the British norms in the United States, tested several school classes of Californian children. They concluded that the British norms were acceptable. In 1963–1965 Skanes tested 4,017 children ages 9 to 14 years in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The similarity between Skanes’ results and the 1938 Ipswich norms is striking (J. Raven, 1981). Later, in 1967, in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Skanes tested the entire population (2,097) of children ages 10 to 14 years.The results consistently lagged behind the Ipswich norms.

    So I’m now left to wonder exactly what scores were recorded on those “acceptable” and “appropriate” and “very similar” tests in California and Surrey and Newfoundland. They’re not in Lynn’s data collection.

    When Raven writes that the 1967 Newfoundland scores scores “consistently lagged behind the Ipswich norms”, does that translate to “twenty-something points less”, as is allegedly the case in Ireland?

    And if it does mean that, what is the explanation for how and why the Newfoundland scores could plummet by such a huge amount in the span of one year?

    Something smells distinctly fishy here.

    Reply

  49. They include journal articles, books, and unpublished dissertations. I’ve been trying to get Chuck to start a new website with me where we can tag team this kind of research. So I guess we’ll see.

    Reply

  50. i suggest that there are other reasons — in additon to the iq ones — behind the levels violence and dysfunctionality we see in different populations.

    I suggest that you are trying to hang on to a theory which is lacking in empirical support.

    Reply

  51. @jason – cool! keep me posted so i can link to it. (^_^)

    if there’s published stuff on irish (and other populations?) iq that richard lynn hasn’t referenced, perhaps ron would like to see it. and maybe lynn, too! (~_^)

    Reply

  52. @frank – “I suggest that you are trying to hang on to a theory which is lacking in empirical support.”

    i’m working on collecting the empirical support (since it hasn’t already been collected). (~_^)

    Reply

  53. @frank – besides my idea (which is not just my idea), there are also differences between populations in things like personality — so, like i said, hbd is not about iq alone.

    Reply

  54. @Jason: “Until there is more to discuss it’s best not to get overly invested in these debates”

    What’s worth discussing and clarifying now is the meaning and measure of National IQs. Let’s take an example: I recently pointed to a 2011 Thai study (N > 70,000), which found a Thai Raven’s IQ of 98. This was 7 points above a 1989 study which Lynn (2012) reported and, yet, 8 points below the contemporaneous Thai IQs based on the most recent international achievement tests. None of the studies mentioned can be said to be unrepresentative or to have been poorly conducted. And it isn’t the case that we are simply dealing with different results due to different measures. There was a clear increase in adolescent Raven’s IQ and a clear lack of increase in PISA IQ. How shall we conceptualize this? I can’t imagine how one would, were National IQs to be equated with sample IQs (a la Ron). But even if not, what are we to say? I would start by making the following distinctions::

    (a) Sample IQ scores
    (b) National IQ scores estimated from (a)
    (c) National intelligence levels inferred from (b)
    (d) Aggregate individual intelligence levels, of the statistical sort, inferred from (c)
    (e) ” “, of the biological sort, inferred form (d)
    (f) ” “., of the genetic sort, inferred from (e)

    And then remark: It’s reasonable to infer that the Thai national intelligence (c) was in the 90s in the 90s. But future research might prove otherwise; perhaps all these samples were outliers. Based on the 2011 study, it’s plausible that the Thai national intelligence, as opposed to merely the Thai adolescent Raven’s score, increased.. If so, we should soon see similar increases in other Thai samples, particularly of the same age cohort, that were given other tests. If such an increase happened, it’s probable that it represented an intelligence (g-factor) increase on the aggregate individual level.. If so, it plausibly represented either (d) or (e).

    Reply

  55. i do understand that having a couple of hundred data sets for irish iq would be way better than just having one — and that the one that we have can’t tell us truly what the irish iq in the 1970s was — but since it’s the only one we’ve got

    We only have one data point for Portugal in 1987. It found a IQ of 88, thirteen points below a 1979 study which found an IQ of 101.

    We only have one data point for Poland in 1989, a study of 4,000 children which found a IQ of 92, fourteen points less than a previous study in 1979.

    I’m unclear as to why everyone is so fixated on defending this one Irish study and not on these. Or, to be honest, I guess I’m not. From the perspective of your side of the argument the implications of this other data are so damaging that it’s best to just try to pretend it’s not there. More Irish data points would be a bad things, as they would cast further doubt on the one cherished study.

    We do have other data for Ireland – the 1979 study finding an IQ of 98, for instance. As with the data for Poland and Portugal, the implications seem to be too disturbing for some people to even contemplate. Like the data for Poland and Portugal, it’s treated as if it does not exist.

    In the case of Ron Unz his deliberate blindness is understandable. No laudable, but understandable. He has built a large argument favoring Hispanic immigration into the US on the basis of that one Irish IQ test, and on ignoring all else. For him, it MUST be true..

    The stubborn dedication of some other people to this failed line of thought is more of a mystery. Ireland did not have a IQ of 87 in 1972. Portugal did not have an IQ of 88 in 1987. Poland did not have an IQ of 92 in 1989. The IQ of Newfoundland did not plummet in a single year. The IQ of America blacks did not drop fifteen points in nine years. And so on for many other example which will doubtless come to light if if we ever see more test results.

    To quote Chuck: “Variance between samples, when not systematic, is error”. Many IQ tests are incorrect, and obviously incorrect at that. In most cases this is not even open to debate. I don’t suppose anyone here is going to engage in an argument spanning weeks on several blogs with respect to the data for Portugal.

    So what to make of people who will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success the theory that IQ of Ireland in 1972 was 87? Why is this particular bit of silliness held with such determination and commitment?

    Reply

  56. @frank – “We only have one data point for Portugal in 1987. It found a IQ of 88, thirteen points below a 1979 study which found an IQ of 101.

    We only have one data point for Poland in 1989, a study of 4,000 children which found a IQ of 92, fourteen points less than a previous study in 1979.”

    i’m in total agreement with you on this, frank. really. in fact, i’m planning on doing (yet another and i promise it will be my last!) post on ron’s iq theory in which i quote you at length pointing out that there are, indeed, multiple iq studies for european nations unlike what ron claimed — and that lynn actually referenced them. i wasn’t aware of that (i really don’t follow the iq debate) and i’m glad you drew my attention to it.

    the only — only — reason i got fixated on the 1972 irish score is because i thought a possible alternative theory to ron’s was that, if that score really represented the irish iq back then, it had to do with a brain drain rather than the actual average irish iq.

    Reply

  57. @frank – “I don’t suppose anyone here is going to engage in an argument spanning weeks on several blogs with respect to the data for Portugal.”

    well, i was going to write a post or two about the italian (and finnish) immigrant iqs that kirkpatrick found, but to be honest i’m tired of the iq discussion, so i’ll leave it to someone else. (~_^)

    Reply

  58. my idea (which is not just my idea), there are also differences between populations in things like personality — so, like i said, hbd is not about iq alone.

    I don’t doubt that HBD encompass many more things than just IQ, and that these other things are important.

    That being said, you are now in the position of saying something rather like “The Irish in 1970 could have been dumb, but placid, thus explaining their remarkably low crime rate in spite of their low IQ”.

    Yes, I suppose this could be true. It’s always easy to come up with hypothetical answers. But as I pointed out to you before, the underlying premise necessitating the various hypotheticals is extremely dubious. The simplest and most logical explanation for all the various phenomena you are trying to explain is that the Irish never had low IQ.

    Once you accept that explanation you do not need to postulate a placid and peaceful Irish temperament. Once you accept that you do not need to construct theories to explain how the Irish in Ireland ended up with such a low IQ, and how it then suddenly rose, and you do not need to speculate as to how the Irish in America, who supposedly had a low IQ on arriving here, ended up much like the rest of white America. No theories about how perhaps the smart Irish left Ireland are required.

    You’re not telling me why you keep rejecting this explanation. Maybe you just get too much fun out of making up theories to explain stuff to worry overmuch about the “stuff” part.

    Reply

  59. This seems to say that the urban areas in Ireland had Ipswich Norm scores of something close to 100, while the rural areas “lagged behind”. If that’s the correct understanding of Ravens words, then the rural areas of Ireland must have :”lagged behind” by a truly staggering amount, something on the order of twenty points or more!

    Raven is describing comparisons with the 34 year old 1938 norms which are unadjusted for the Flynn Effect. The unadjusted score for the entire sample on the 1938 norms is 97, and 100 for the urban sample. The unadjusted score for the entire sample on the 1979 norms is 85, and 88 for the urban sample.

    It’s also remarkable because Raven mentions the Irish IQ tests as being part of a series of tests which demonstrated the (at the time) continuing validity of the Ipswich Norms.

    His examples would score low on the 1979 norms as well.

    The Flynn Effect certainly does contribute to a lot of justifiable uncertainty about the meaning of IQ measurements across time and space. On hypothetical current norms the 1938 UK sample would have something like an IQ of 80. This is intrinsically dubious, and psychometric properties like lack of measurement invariance suggest modern scores are not comparable with older norms. They have different meanings.

    Showing that group IQ scores are strictly comparable actually requires lots of complex psychometric research; research that exists for very few groups. I’m willing to accept that international IQ measurements are loosely comparable, for the sake of big-picture analysis. But reading too deeply into the noisy data of individual studies is not productive.

    Reply

  60. @frank – “The simplest and most logical explanation for all the various phenomena you are trying to explain is that the Irish never had low IQ…. You’re not telling me why you keep rejecting this explanation.”

    i don’t reject it. it is clearly one possibility. and maybe even the most likely one, as you say. (although i don’t ever recall reading or learning in school that the irish nation developed v-2 rockets or sent men to the moon in the middle of the twentieth century, which is why i am inclined to believe a lower than 100 mean irish iq for that time period. maybe not 87, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the scores for the irish nation were lower than 100 back then.)

    you’re the one who’s assuming that there is a direct connection between intelligence and violence. i’m just suggesting that there are, perhaps, other biological reasons for human behavioral traits in addition to intelligence.

    Reply

  61. Frank
    “When AE looked at the urban/rural difference in IQ in white ethnic groups in the US, he found it to be about five or six points. That’s the upper bound to the gap you mention, one which would only apply if 100% of Englishmen lived in urban areas and 100% of Irishmen in rural areas.”

    Well that’s progress at least but no it isn’t the upper bound *if* there is something specific about populations who have been inter-marrying in the same valley for 1000+ years which doesn’t apply to white ethnic groups in the US.

    .
    “We know what countries with an average IQ of 87 look like. They are violent dysfunctional, semi-failed states.”

    Only if you believe average IQ decides everything about a country. A country like Bangladesh where the population has been settled farmers for millenia will be dysfunctional in a non-violent way and a country like Somalia which either still is or has recently been based on feuding and clan-warfare will be dysfunctional in a violent way simply because the frequency of violent men within the two populations are different for (man-made) evolutionary reasons.

    .
    “in order to assure the survival and the success the theory that IQ of Ireland in 1972 was 87? Why is this particular bit of silliness held with such determination and commitment?”

    Because Ireland is next door to Britain and has roughly the same base genetics so it makes a perfect test case – as Britian was the first to industrialize – for the idea that there is something specific that happens, or can happen, among rural human populations who have been inter-marrying in the same valley for millenia which can lift quite dramatically if/when they move out of their valley to the town and marry someone even from the next valley. If so, then the same basic idea might then apply to the other (if it and they exist) anomalies and have a lot of explanatory power.

    Reply

  62. Chuck
    “Thai IQs based on the most recent international achievement tests. None of the studies mentioned can be said to be unrepresentative or to have been poorly conducted.”

    If there is a distinct or in some cases maybe even dramatic rural vs urban split (where “rural” is taken to mean people who have been inter-marrying in the same valley for millenia not just people who happen to live in the countryside) then would the assumption of being representative hold if that wasn’t taken into account?

    If there was such a split then the results from two studies conducted at the same time and in the same region but one mostly rural and one mostly urban could show marked differences.

    Reply

  63. Frank: thirteen points below a 1979 study which found an IQ of 101…fourteen points less than a previous study in 1979…We do have other data for Ireland – the 1979 study finding an IQ of 98

    Well, it’s always nice to notice when someone never bothers to read a single word I’ve written.

    As it happens, all three of those near-100 IQ studies from 1979 are part of the 19 national samples contained in the Buj (1981) collection, which tend to be extreme outliers in all the various countries. Supposedly, the Buj IQ studies were totally non-representative and were generally conducted in capital cities, which might help explain why usually they often tend to be 10-15 points higher than other IQ studies from those same countries. The Buj studies are the only reason that Lynn (2002) shows such a huge spread in the IQs for Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, and Sweden. Perhaps the Buj studies should all just be ignored.

    Furthermore, the 1979 Buj study for Ireland yielding an IQ of 98 was based on just 75 participants, which is an absurd sample size and just not to be taken seriously, especially when weighed against the 1972 sample of 3,500 students, which Jason Malloy has now claimed was careful and well designed.

    As for whether an IQ of 87 for Ireland in the 1970s was remotely plausible, Lynn himself certainly seemed to think so, based on his many years of personal research there. However, if you want to just dismiss Lynn as some sort of crackpot, that’s none of my business.

    I certainly don’t claim to be any sort of IQ expert. But I do find it a little troublesome that the very obvious problems I’ve noticed seem to be quite a shock to so many of the IQ experts who’ve invested so much time in the subject…

    Reply

  64. Check out the comments over at Audacious Epigone on rural IQ… pretty interesting!!!!

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/08/iq-estimates-from-wordsum-scores-by.html

    This morning Ron Unz conceded that he achieved his low rural IQ by fudging his data, removing from the rural data small towns and other things, leaving only those who live on farms. He says he did this because that way “the contrast was the starkest” — in other words, presumably the small town data did not fit his notion of low rural IQ.

    Farm population is less than 2% of the US population and only one subset of the rural population, so farm population can hardly be a representative sample. Of course farmers aren’t the world’s most literary people.

    Reply

    1. @ Dan (tongue in cheek, don’t get serious on this):

      “Check out the comments over at Audacious Epigone on rural IQ… pretty interesting!!!! http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/08/iq-estimates-from-wordsum-scores-by.html”

      Say it ain’t so. Taken at face value (and flagrantly ignoring the fact that the places sampled are not exhaustive) the world’s brain trust after you control for urban – rural differences is Russia, Britain and France. Russia is no surprise. They were even able to get communism to work for a while. The thing these places have in common (France a bit less than the others) is that they are very remote from the great swath of ancient civilizations extending across North Africa, the Mid East, India and eastward across Asia. In the high latitudes there was an opportunity for the survival of Paleolithic elements in the population relative to the urban-optimized civilized folk. That would imply that once you control for short term urban-rural effects, the Paleolithics were smarter. In that case the Scotch Irish of the border should have a higher IQ than the Scots to the north and the English to the south. That should be testable. Stop it. I don’t need the encouragement.

      But you can take this one seriously: Thanks for an interesting link.

      Reply

  65. Frank
    ““When AE looked at the urban/rural difference in IQ in white ethnic groups in the US, he found it to be about five or six points. That’s the upper bound to the gap you mention”

    I should add that i think if the latitude theory is correct then 5-6 points is what should be expected as the upper bound for any gap between populations from roughly the same latitude once any complicating factors e.g. differential urbanization, have been smoothed out – which they mostly will have in the USA.

    Reply

  66. “I certainly don’t claim to be any sort of IQ expert. But I do find it a little troublesome that the very obvious problems…”

    Ron,

    Could you give us a quantitative estimate of the type of global Hereditarianism that you consider, in light of your review, tenable (e.g., 40%)? .Keep in mind that heritability is a population estimate (and that “hereditarianism” is really heritabilitism). As such “40%”, for example, wouldn’t mean that all gaps would be 40% genetic (e.g., between Mexico and the US). Just that 40% of the inter-national variance would be (and so, for example, the US-China gap could be 100% genetic and the US Mexico gap could be 20%.).

    If you haven’t read, I posted on this before and concluded that a >50% hypothesis is untenable. At first I was getting goofy super-duper selection arguments from Sailer et al, but, in some instances, I was able to rule out this possibility. See, for example:

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/holland-white-black-gap/
    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/is-global-race-realism-still-tenable/

    These posts are superfluous now as there have been quite a few well conducted EU studies on the performance of immigrants using international test data. Generally, you have to squint hard to see support for even a moderate genetic hypothesis. (See, for example, “The Educational Performance of Children of Immigrants in Sixteen OECD Countries.” You really should have made your cause using these or other European results.)

    But, as noted in a meandering comment on your original post, which you must have missed, 50% is no more than what “Hard hereditarians” argue (when it comes to the global difference):

    Chuck (July 21): “Lynn (2006) proposes that 50% of the national IQ variance is genetically conditioned. Nothing that Ron has mentioned contradicts this figure. We can take his European immigrant examples as examples… If the difference, though, is so small, why mention it? Because, on the population level small IQ differences can have large effects, as L & V and others have demonstrated. Additionally, the largest differences are between, rather than within, races. If we grant Lynn’s phenotypic National IQs, N.E Asians and Africans would differ, genotypically, by 1.2 SD, which is a substantial amount.”

    (Compare this to Ron (August 5): “Not a single one of the vast outpouring of critical remarks I have received from Lynn admirers has ever suggested that I was misrepresenting Lynn when I characterized his position as essentially IQ-determinism”)

    Probably no one else mentioned this because it’s so well accepted.

    Now, I think you can make a good argument that no more than 30% of the variance is genetic based on the papers mentioned. I’ve been pointing out for a while that this whole issue can readily be resolved by looking at that the International test performance patterns of immigrants across Europe and compare destination to origin effects.

    Reply

  67. Ron,

    Here were two other of my posts:

    https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/

    https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/

    I think it’s possible that, say, the average Black African has a genotype IQ 10-15 points below that of the average UK White. But based on the immigrant performance (given regression to the mean), the difference can’t be much higher that that.

    Reply

  68. Chuck

    Logically, closing the education gap can only be done by either lifting the lower end or lowering the top end.

    If what you say is true and the countries that have closed the education gap have done it by lifting the lower end (or lifting the lower end more than they’ve lifted the top end) then not only should those countries stay at their relative position within international education rankings but they should improve their position because by lifting up the lower end then logically they must have increased their average ability.

    On the other hand if they’ve reduced the gap by lowering the bar to make it easier for everyone to pass and harder for the brighter ones to distinquish themselves then all they’ve done is reduce the g loading of their education system and not the gap itself i.e. effectively pulling down the top end as the brighter kids are no longer being stretched to their full potential. If so then those countries will be reducing their average ability and those countries will plummet down the international education rankings.

    I think that’s logically sound. There are only two options one of which *must* by simple arithmetic increase average ability and one that must reduce it*.

    *It will only reduce effective abilty of course. Dumbing down the education system won’t change the number of bright kids with the potential ability to learn calculus but only the number who get taught calculus in the first place. However any drop in effective ability will show up in international comparisons.

    Reply

  69. @dan – “This morning Ron Unz conceded that he achieved his low rural IQ by fudging his data….”

    you’re kidding?!?! honestly. what’s the point in engaging in any discussion with that man when he deals from the bottom of the deck?!

    i’ll have to have a look at it in the a.m. ’cause it’s too late now. thanks for pointing it out!

    Reply

  70. it’s always nice to notice when someone never bothers to read a single word I’ve written.

    … said the pot to the kettle.

    all three of those near-100 IQ studies from 1979 are part of the 19 national samples contained in the Buj (1981) collection, which tend to be extreme outliers in all the various countries.

    As with so many thing which you state with great certainty and conviction, this is not only not correct, it is very obliviously incorrect. Looking a Lynn’s data we can see three studies for Belgium, with scores of 88, 103, and 98. The Buj study produced the 98 result. Rindermann arrived at an IQ of 99 for Belgium.

    Lynn has two data points for Bulgaria, 91 and 94, the latter being the Buj result. Rindermann calculated the Bulgarian IQ as 93.5

    Lynn has two data points for Czechloslovakia/ the Czech Republic, 96 and 98, the latter by Buj. Rindremann reports a figure of 100.

    Austria, 103 and 101, the latter by Buj.

    Denmark, 97 and 99, the latter by Buj.

    Finland, 98 and 96, the latter by Buj.

    Italy, 103 and 101, the latter by Buj.

    And so on. For most countries the Buj numbers appear to be correct, or certainly close to what the other data is telling us. It is not the case that the Buj data is consistently an extreme outlier. In those cases where only two studies are presented, where one is by Buj, and where there is a sizable gap between their results (which occurred in three countries) it is not the case that you can simply dismiss the Buj number as the incorrect one.

    IQ tests sometimes give the wrong result. The single largest contributor of IQ tests to Lynn was Buj, which makes it highly probable that some of his numbers are somewhat incorrect. But most of his data seems to be in line with other studies.

    Your desire to throw out all the Buj results is driven by your need to throw out the Buj result for Ireland. Your need to throw out the Buj result for Ireland is driven by your need to believe that Ireland in the 1970’s had an IQ similar to that of Mexico today. Your need to believe that Ireland in the 1970’s had an IQ similar to that of Mexico today is necessitated by your desire to believe that Hispanic immigration into the US is not having and will not have deleterious consequences.

    You are a textbook example of the person whose thought processes involve starting with the question “What would I like to be true?” and then casting about for bits and bobs of evidence which can be interpreted to support the desired narrative.

    You reputedly possess a high IQ. If that is correct you can take solace in the fact that you are single-handedly refuting the case that IQ corresponds with intelligence.

    Reply

  71. As for whether an IQ of 87 for Ireland in the 1970s was remotely plausible, Lynn himself certainly seemed to think so, based on his many years of personal research there.

    Ulster Protestants like Lynn tend to regard Irish Catholics in much the same way as Nazis look on Jews and KKK members look on blacks.(These days I could add to that list ” ..the same way Jews look on non-Jewish white people”) I consider his personal opinions to be less than worthless in this regard. If he conducted any personal research I’m surprised it did not make it into IQ and the Wealth Of Nations.

    I certainly don’t claim to be any sort of IQ expert. But I do find it a little troublesome that the very obvious problems I’ve noticed seem to be quite a shock to so many of the IQ experts who’ve invested so much time in the subject

    As was pointed out to you before, Lynn averaged the results of several studies together in an effort to minimize the inherent errors which tend to appear in any individual study. The problems which you noticed are an artifact of your disaggregating the data, which you are doing in an attempt to discern historical changes in IQ. That’s not a bad project in itself (though I think Flynn has already done this and done it better) but it should be obvious that in doing so you run the risk of introducing errors. That risk is compounded by your tendency to cherry-pick the data you want in order to arrive at your preferred conclusions, a tendency which has been pointed out to you many times by many people.

    Reply

  72. @Greying Wanderer “On the other hand if they’ve reduced the gap by lowering the bar to make it easier for everyone to pass and harder for the brighter ones to distinquish themselves then all they’ve done is reduce the g loading of their education system and not the gap itself ”

    For background, read through my series of posts on this:

    (1) Chuck takes his first look at the UK gap; he finds the small achievement gaps to be discordant with Lynn’s claims

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/the-general-mental-ability-gma-of-black-british/

    (2) Chuck investigates further; he finds that the achievement gaps have closed; commenters critique

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/is-global-race-realism-still-tenable/

    (3) Chuck replies to critiques:

    (a) He shows small gaps on reasonably g-loaded tests

    https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/more-evidence-uk-math-and-reading-achievement-gaps/

    (b) He shows a large class differences; as one commenter noted:

    “Yeah, the tests seem to discriminate just fine. This is really troubling data for the racial-hereditarian position and has caused me to update away from it to a degree. It’s obviously not a slam dunk that completely does away with the debate but it’s really troubling data. Even more troubling is the “meh, whatever” reaction from the top hereditarians. Reasonable objections have been raised by the commentators here but no-one has really succeeded in explaining this away.”

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/race-class-and-cognition-in-the-uk/

    (4) Chuck responds further. He presents new IQ data:

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5396/

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/partially-falsified/

    (5) Chuck debunks the goofy alternatives offered:

    http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/a-little-bit-of-difference-goes-a-long-way/

    —————–

    So no…there is one other logical possibility. And this happens to fit the findings. The racial gaps were closed on g loaded tests because they could be, because they were not additively genetically conditioned.

    I open to an unthought alternative though.

    Reply

  73. @Chuck

    You’re avoiding the point and your wall of text is irrelevant.

    If they’ve closed the gap by raising the lower end (or by raising the lower end more than the top end) then their *average* ability must have increased.

    Yes or no?

    Reply

  74. There was no brain drain. It was always the poorest Irish Catholics who left Ireland. Unless you are claiming that the poorest Irish Catholics also had the highest IQs, the brain drain explanation does not work.

    Reply

  75. @joe – “It was always the poorest Irish Catholics who left Ireland.”

    no, that is incorrect. from sowell:

    “Although the cost of a trip to the United States in the hold of a cargo vessel was less than ten pounds sterling (less than fifty dollars at contemporary exchange rates), the poorest of the Irish could not afford even that, so that immigration was very low from the poorest fourth of the Irish population. Those a notch above them on the economic scale emigrated in large numbers, often by selling their belongings, using up savings, and spending money sent by relatives already in America. From one-third to three-quarters of the Irish immigrations to America in the 1830s and 1840s was financed by money sent from North America.”

    so it was the middle group — not the lowest and not the highest iq groups — that emigrated in large numbers.

    the poorest people can never immigrate because they just can’t afford the boat/plane/bus ticket (because they have the lowest iqs). high iq/wealthy segements of societies prolly don’t emigrate much, either. what reason do they have to?

    Reply

  76. “If they’ve closed the gap by raising the lower end (or by raising the lower end more than the top end) then their *average* ability must have increased.”

    If they lifted the lower performing groups and did not simultaneously lower the higher performing groups, then, obviously, yes.

    I don’t see your point. .

    Reply

  77. Chuck

    “I don’t see your point.”

    It’s a testable proposition. If they’ve done what they say they’ve done then the increase in average ability should show in international comparisons.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s