Is this study accurate?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.