Is this study accurate?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

White Boys Average IQ = 101

Mulatto Boys Average IQ = 97

An African-American has an average IQ of 85, so the mean of average white and black IQ is 92.5 which is what a Mulatto would be expected to have. But they have 4.5 points higher than this? This is especially interesting if you consider African-Americans are already around 20% white on average so the mean of an average 80 IQ sub-Saharan and 100 IQ white should be 90 IQ. Possible explanation is heterosis as I've discussed in the past.

So, consider a scenario where a nation is forced to be multicultural. Wouldn't race mixing with the black population result in a net positive for the average IQ of the nation?

Finally, Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I really don't see what more we need to add to Jensen's explanation: adolescents have not fully developed yet, and the US Forces are not an accurate sampling of African Americans, with the bottom 30% excluded.

    I suppose you're right but even Jensen suggests heterosis was a contributing factor. Also, this was only for the US, 80% of the mixed race fathers in the study were French Africans, so if France also had a minimum or was even testing IQ during WW2, what was it?

    Finally, Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I have never seen a study to actually indicate such an effect for IQ

      Well, as for this study supporting it, if we account for the 80% being French where conscription is mandatory, your argument doesn't explain an entire 7 IQ points higher than where it would be expected. I'd have to do the exact math, but it seems unlikely the bottom 30% of only 20% of the sample being removed would cause such an increase in of itself.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        The white boys IQ is the same as white adults IQ.

        [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Classic Eyferth - a favorite of egalitarians gaslighters

        A few problems off the top of my head:

        1) the study is on children, aged between 5 and 13 (mean age: 10. Heritability of IQ is very low in childhood

        2) 80 percent of fathers were French Africans and the remaining approximately 20 percent were African Americans. So we're probably talking about North Africans, not SubSaharans - but I don't know this for sure

        3) Blacks serving in the US Army (and probably the French army too) were subjected to IQ tests. Which means the fathers are already not representative of the average black

        4) We dont know the IQs of the mothers, who were mostly of low SES

        So basically there are lot of problems extrapolating this data into the general populations and given the age/race of the actual participants probably doesn't even deviate from a hereditarian expectation. And the gaps still exist, they're just smaller

        AltHype addresses this study in a video but I'd have to look to find it

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        4) We dont know the IQs of the mothers, who were mostly of low SES

        If we consider that blacks usually only get low quality whites to begin with, wouldn't it make more sense that this is actually in favor of the legitimacy of the results rather than the other way around?

        2) 80 percent of fathers were French Africans and the remaining approximately 20 percent were African Americans. So we're probably talking about North Africans, not SubSaharans - but I don't know this for sure

        North Africans have a lower IQ than African-Americans with Morocco at 82. Seems like a weak assumption anyway. France had more sub-Saharan land than North African, and by a lot.

        Blacks serving in the US Army (and probably the French army too) were subjected to IQ tests. Which means the fathers are already not representative of the average black

        This is probably the best criticism. But with a low bar of 85 during WW2 I'd agree with Jensen that heterosis was still a contributing factor. Did France even administer IQ tests during such a desperate time?

        [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'd agree with Jensen that heterosis

        There is still virtually no evidence for heterosis for most traits, including IQ. It's just wishful thinking on your part. Jensen was just speculating whenever he made these statements as a potnetial counter to the egalitarian (no gene effects) position

        [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        wouldn't it make more sense that this is actually in favor of the legitimacy of the results rather than the other way around?

        I don't think so. One of the most strikingly anomalous things in this study is the inexplicably low scores of the white girls (93?)

        North Africans have a lower IQ than African-Americans with Morocco at 82

        My point was that the French africans were probably not SS Africans

        Seems like a weak assumption anyway

        Maybe

        Did France even administer IQ tests during such a desperate time?

        Almost definitely The US used IQ tests as early as WWI, theyre very useful for assessing trainability and they don't take that long to administer. In any case we can assume some basic competency tests were done - the consequences of drafting potentially incapable personel into the military are probably worse than the benefits. Also these men fathered children from 1945-1953, with many probably conscripted after the war was over. Which can make us even more confident some cognitive assessments were done

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        It seems reasonable. IQ is a function of age, and Africans reach their peak intelligence sooner than whites do. Childhood IQ also tends to be based more on environmental factors, while by adulthood it's based more on heredity.

        [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I remember an old debate between Flynn and Murray where Murray pretty much sums up my initial thoughts. Tiny data set and what of it if it's accurate? So now the mountains of evidence on our side when it comes to racial differences in IQ are somehow invalidated because of one study involving 80 kids? (Jensen saying it had to do with heterosis is hilarious.)

        So, consider a scenario where a nation is forced to be multicultural. Wouldn't race mixing with the black population result in a net positive for the average IQ of the nation?

        Go knock up some jig and test your hypothesis.

        [–]WaltzRoommate 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

        Probably not.

        That study was taken on US military members. To get into the military, you need to take an ASVAB, which is basically an IQ test. Today you need to beat one out of three test takers to be allowed to enlist. Idk what the standard was back then, but it says in your wiki article that 3% of whites failed and 30% of blacks failed. Taken in context, this means that the mix between a white women and black person in the top 70% will have a higher IQ than a white woman and a randomly selected black. This should be very very very obvious.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

        From the study:

        Of the fathers of the mixed-race children, about 80 percent were French Africans and the remaining approximately 20 percent were African Americans.

        Was France using IQ testing and if so what was the minimum to get into the military in WW2? Seems unlikely they even had one at this time, or if they did it was even lower than the US. The minimum for the US was 85 during this time.

        [–]WaltzRoommate 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

        Rushton's paragraph seems to imply that to me.

        Also this wasn't brought up, but passing basic training is also going to be a proxy for IQ. The US today believes that only the top 2/3s of applicants are smart enough to be trained for the military. That doesn't mean that if they just removed that requirement, everyone would be smart enough to pass. It means that according to the US military, the bottom third would fail basic training and it's just easier and cheaper to make them fail in the testing room before their first day than it is to have them drop. The bottom third would fall out with or without the ASVAB.

        That being said, Rushton seems to me to be saying that they did.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        France has a universal military conscription as a condition of citizenship though.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_France

        What about Jensen suggesting heterosis played a part in enhancing the mulatto IQ? Do you feel he's completely wrong and it did not enhance it at all or that it's fairly insignificant and added at best around 1-2 points on average?

        [–]WaltzRoommate 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        France has a universal military conscription as a condition of citizenship though.

        Conscription doesn't mean you automatically pass basic training.

        What about Jensen suggesting heterosis played a part in enhancing the mulatto IQ? Do you feel he's completely wrong and it did not enhance it at all or that it's fairly insignificant and added at best around 1-2 points on average?

        There's not a whole lot of evidence for heterosis and there's a competing hypothesis that it makes offspring worse. Ryan Faulk made a video going over it.

        If I were to speculate, I'd speculate that the reason it seems plausible to people is due to assorted mating. If you're a black man with a white woman, you're probably the top tier of black men and so your children are going to test better than they would if you just average the two groups together.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Ryan Faulk made a video going over it.

        I believe you already sent me it on Reddit.

        If you're a black man with a white woman, you're probably the top tier of black men and so your children are going to test better than they would if you just average the two groups together.

        This is probably negated by the fact that the average black also only gets among the lowest quality white women.

        [–]WaltzRoommate 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        This is probably negated by the fact that the average black also only gets among the lowest quality white women.

        Honestly, it's probably not, at least not fully so. Very few white women sink below the level of black women. I'm not saying those kids will be 100 IQ on average, but their kids will probably be higher than what you'd expect just from averaging the two populations together.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Conscription doesn't mean you automatically pass basic training.

        People can essentially play dumb and get out of the mandatory conscription then? Does it actually work like that in France?

        [–]WaltzRoommate 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'm not an expert on France, but I know it works like that in the US because certain famous individuals got out of the draft for being incompetent before those individuals were famous. Both Jerry Garcia and Jimi Hendrix were drafted but let out due to failure to adapt. America was a more patriotic place in the 1960s and while what gets passed down through the ages is draft card burning hippie protests, most people probably just do what the government says and take pride in it.

        [–]arainynightinskyrim 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        To grow our subs try to crosspost on

        https://ruqqus.com/+DebateTheDissidentRight?sort=new

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

        An African-American has an average IQ of 85, so the mean of average white and black IQ is 92.5

        An African-American yes but not average African-American soldier. There was intelligence screening during WWII before admitting soldiers in the army. Which of course, great number of blacks didn't pass and those that did had above average IQ. The mean IQ of black soldiers was in low 90s. The IQ of mulattoes is exactly what hereditarian hypothesis would predict.

        Group Eyferth IQ Heredetarian “Prediction”
        White Males 101 100.5
        White Females 93 100.5
        Mixed Males 97 95.6
        Mixed Females 96 95.6

        The Eyferth study, ironically enough, supports hereditarianism more than it does environmentalism. Despite usually being cited by the latter group. Here is good summary of it: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-mixed-populations-part-1/

        So, consider a scenario where a nation is forced to be multicultural. Wouldn't race mixing with the black population result in a net positive for the average IQ of the nation?

        No. Your own data doesn't support this conclusion. Even if the IQ of blacks was 85 as you claimed and their progeny with whites had IQ of 97, it's still 3 IQ points lower that what normal white kids have. So it is not "net positive" by any stretch of imagination. This is pretty obvious for anyone. You asking that suggests an attempts for low-key trolling rather than honest discussion.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        So it is not "net positive"

        If blacks have 85 average, and whites have 100, because 13% of US population is black if their offspring had 97 it would in fact result in a net positive for the nation. It doesn't have to be higher than the white average itself for it to result in a net positive for the nation, only that the blacks are being replaced with a race that has an average IQ above the mean between white and black. Read through other replies, you are the only person who doesn't understand this. That is why the entire main debate is whether heterosis exists with everyone else here (Which Jensen says it does). I'd say you were playing dumb but this has been a recurring theme for you when debating.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        It doesn't have to be higher than the white average itself for it to result in a net positive for the nation

        If this is how you see it then the question made no sense in that context. Because whether the IQ of mixed kids was 97 or 92.5 (in both cases it's higher than 85) then it would still be "net positive" in both cases. So the question was completely irrelevant to the rest of your post.

        And Jensen probably didn't think what you think he did. Or if he did, he must have changed his mind because in 2005 he said of Eyferth study this:

        First, the children were still very young when tested. One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two thirds were between10 and 13 years. ... Second, 20% to 25% of the“Black” fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e.,largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here). Third, there was rigorous selection based on IQ score in the U.S. Army at the time, with a rejection rate for Blacks on the preinduction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared with 3% for Whites (see Davenport, 1946, Tables I and III).

        https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

        No mention of heterosis or hybrid vigor.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        then it would still be "net positive" in both cases. So the question was completely irrelevant to the rest of your post

        No, if mulatto IQ is the mean between white and black there is no increase or decrease in the average IQ of the nation. Which is why 92.5 in the US wouldn't be a net positive. Only the 97 or anything higher than 92.5 presented in the study.

        No mention of heterosis or hybrid vigor.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

        Finally, Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        No, if mulatto IQ is the mean between white and black there is no increase or decrease in the average IQ of the nation. Which is why 92.5 in the US wouldn't be a net positive. Only the 97 or anything higher than 92.5 presented in the study.

        It would be decrease either way because it would be lower than white IQ in both cases. If all whites in the country had mulatto kid with IQ of 97 or 92 instead of white kid with IQ of 100, it would be decrease by 3 points or 8 points. It's just a matter of degree.

        Finally, Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

        Right, and if you check the citation for that claim you will see it's Jensen (1998) and Rushton & Jensen (2005), the latter of which I already linked which means he must have said that in 1998. And apparently changed his mind since then.

        [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        If all whites in the country had mulatto kid

        Who said all the whites are having a mulatto kid? Blacks are only 13% of the US population.

        It would be decrease either way because it would be lower than white IQ in both cases. If all whites in the country had mulatto kid with IQ of 97 or 92 instead of white kid with IQ of 100, it would be decrease by 3 points or 8 points.

        Holy shit what aren't you understanding? It is a net positive for the average IQ of the nation because it's higher than the mean of black and white IQ. The blacks go away for a sacrifice of 3 IQ points below a white average IQ which results in a net positive (because of the removal of the black 85 average).

        Third, there was rigorous selection based on IQ score in the U.S. Army at the time

        Read the actual study please. Only 20% of the sample were African-Americans. 80% were French Africans and France has mandatory conscription for all citizens.

        And apparently changed his mind since then.

        Him not repeating it does not mean he changed his mind, it means he already suggested it and didn't need to suggest it again.

        [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Who said all the whites are having a mulatto kid? Blacks are only 13% of the US population.

        So in this thought experiment of yours, all blacks mix with whites and produce mulattoes with 97 IQ as opposed to mulattoes with 92.5 IQ. And this 4.5 IQ difference is the "net positive". Okay then, I was thinking something else.

        Read the actual study please. Only 20% of the sample were African-Americans. 80% were French Africans and France has mandatory conscription for all citizens.

        Tell this to Jensen, I was only citing him.

        Him not repeating it does not mean he changed his mind, it means he already suggested it and didn't need to suggest it again.

        That's not how it works. In that very paper he was repeating some arguments about IQ he made twenty years ago. So he has no problem with that. And the paper was basically a review of literature in the field so you are supposed to repeat the arguments you or others made. And even if he didn't want to repeat himself on this for whatever reason, he would at least referenced his 1998 work where he made that argument. The fact that he did not do any of those things means that he did change his mind.