What evidence is there that race and ethnicity are biological (e.g. determined by genetics) and not social constructs?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

[deleted]

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

Thanks for stopping by to check us out

What evidence is there that race and ethnicity are biological (e.g. determined by genetics) and not social constructs?

Alright, so to start - what people mean by "race" is very obviously biological/genetic. "Black" parents can't give birth to "white" children or vice-versa. Everyone knows this. Second, everything humans ever made up to describe the world is a "social construct." "Species", "subspecies", etc. are "social constructs." To say something is a "social construct" implies nothing about the validity of the construct. It's a meaningless term.

Families are also social constructs. Where does your family begin and end? Are second cousins your "family"? Family also has different meanings in different cultures. It's just a social construct.

All I can see on the internet is that race and ethnicity do not represent real distinct categories of people.

This is just the dominant dogma reinforced by propaganda and the social consequences for stating otherwise. There's no strong evidence supporting such conclusions about human taxonomy. Sure, there might be blurry lines at the edges (What is "white" ??) but the archetypal example of one race will be very clearly different from an archetypal example of another

That race and ethnicity are social constructs that are not reflected biologically.

This is just not true. Best-fit genetic clusters correspond to "socially constructed" race 99.9% of the time.. Humans also have as much, or more, genetic variation than other animals with recognized subspecies do

Not going to bother reading your mainstream media sources. They just push narratives. Simply make the arguments here and I'll respond to them. Instead, I'll leave you with this piece by Ed Dutton - The Arguments Against "Race"

For instance, there is more genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than in the rest of the world combined

Well there should be - since humans originated in Africa. Humans who left Africa all descend from more or less the same founding individuals and left relatively recently (there were waves of migrations, but still). Regardless, the amount of genetic diversity between populations implies nothing about how meaningful that diversity is. For instance, you could have two populations who are very genetically diverse but look the same, because all the diversity is just random mutations that don't actually impact phenotype (good example might be like, Finns and Irish). On the other hand, you could have siblings who are genetically identical except one sibling has one copy of the recessive sickle-cell anemia gene, and the other has two. Obviously this extremely slight genetic difference will have very serious phenotypic consequences for the latter. Similarly, the amount of genetic diversity alone implies nothing about the validity of race.

yet we act like "black" is one category and all "black" people have more in common with each other than with any white individual.

Eh.. it depends on who you talk to. From the perspective of Europeans and in the context of American slavery, all Africans can be (and have been) lumped together because they are much more like each other than they are to us or other people outside of Africa. This is just convenient. Now, us professional racists know that a lot of different types of Africans exist - but all of them are pretty dark, antisocial, and low-IQ compared to us. So, it's not always practical to entertain these distinctions. It is true that humans have not operated as if there is an "official" racial taxonomy and just make up convenient words to describe other populations at their place in time. It would be nice if an official race/ethnicity taxonomy existed - but, this isn't done. At least, not in the West. Again, genetic diversity is historically not really a criterion for subspecies, it's all about phenotype. Same for races.

But this isn't true, because one particular black individual has more in common genetically with a particular white individual than another particular black individual.

This is a butchering of Lewontin's Fallacy. The idea that a black person is more genetically similar to a white person than another black person is literally never true if you include enough genes in your sample (and doesn't this argument strike you as absurd on it's face?)

plebbit link 1

First [deleted] commenter is mostly correct, replyguy is wrong as we've shown

There is more genetic variation between members of the same population than compared to members of a population on a different continent. That's why race as a biological category is problematic

Its just a dumb argument. Even if we pretended that naive genetic diversity was a necessary criterion for race/subspecies (it historically has not been), and that means that Africa has to have like 10+ races or something, then "fine" - there's 10 different kinds of africans, and also Europeans, East Asians, Indians, AmerIndians, whatever else. Does this really matter?

Ethnicity is also said to be a social construct

Again even families are social constructs, so they don't really exist

I was wondering if there is evidence to the contrary?

There's plenty. Look into race and IQ differences, heritability of IQ, race and crime, heritability of political views, race differences in brain size, differences in all kinds of skeleto-muscular traits like pelvis shape or femur length. Where to begin? Actually - start at AltHype's "Existence of Race".

Is there any evidence provided by scientists that race and ethnicity are biological (e.g. determined by genetics) and not social constructs

Again this "social construct" is a meaningless statement and I've provided plenty of evidence.

I have heard of major races, but can there be races within major races?

You mean ethnicities?

And is there a way to look at genes and find out someone's ethnicity?

Just apply a basic shit-test: If ethnicity isn't genetic, then how can 23&Me tell people what their ethnicity is based off their genetics? Use some common sense.

Also, I want to point out that this "social construct" BS only ever crops up when white people try to defend themselves. When the media talks about "White supremacy" or "white privilege" everyone knows what white is and who white people are. But, when white people want to group together and push back, suddenly race is just a "social construct" and we "don't even know what white is!" All other races are allowed to have advocacy groups, PACs, BLM etc. It's really dumb and obvious what the game is. If you don't think race is real, go to a BLM protest and tell them nicely to stop rioting because "black people don't even exist" since "race is a social construct" and see how well that works. Likewise, if you're not sure what "white" is, then ask your local feminist who has "white privilege" and who doesn't.

Again genuinely thanks for stopping by, and if you have specific questions about race/genetics/IQ whatever I can answer them. But, I'm about to start drinking and don't know how prompt I'll be in replying. Thankfully, "drunk" is a social construct and if I get bored I might still respond

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said. You've earned a nice belt of whatever your poison is for this excellent response.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Now, us professional racists know that a lot of different types of Africans exist - but all of them are pretty dark, antisocial, and low-IQ compared to us PNG .

I agree with your other stuff (i.e crime, skull shape and muscles) but this map that gets posted on the internet needs better fact checking. Rushton & Lynn are two scientists with serious credibility issues. Lynn because he lied about his results for Africa (he admitted to using Spanish children test scores and filling in the blanks for Africa) and Rushton because he took money from the Pioneer Fund.

Disclaimer: I do not deny the existence of race. I've only read new Liberal arguments that say those IQ maps are using fraudulent sources.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Lynn because he lied about his results for Africa (he admitted to using Spanish children test scores and filling in the blanks for Africa)

This is not what happened.

The people who first pointed this out were Wicherts et al. (2010) and this is how they characterized it:

"However, the use of this sample is an error. The average IQ of the people of Equatorial Guinea is based on a lengthy book chapter (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 1997). Although this chapter reports research conducted among members of an illiterate tribe in Equatorial Guinea, the WISC-R was not administered to these Africans. The forty-eight children, to whom the WISC (not the WISC-R) was administered, were from Spain, not from Equatorial Guinea. Clearly, Lynn (and Vanhanen) made a mistake in using this sample to estimate average IQ of Africans."

It is clear to them but it is not clear to the internet. How this paragraph managed to be transformed into "Lynn admitted to lying about his results" is just fascinating. I hope I don't have to explain to anyone the difference between lying and making a mistake. Lynn didn't went like "ha-ha-ha now I will pretend this is the IQ of Equatorial Guinea because God, I just hate black people so much. Fuck melanin!!!"

I urge anyone who is not convinced whether Lynn's IQ maps can be trusted to either read this paper or chapters on IQ reliability and IQ validity in this book, p. 30-33.

Anyone who uses this argument should know that James Flynn used to argue back in 90s that asians have lower IQ than whites and that Stephen Jay Gould believed that humans can mate with monkeys. Does this mean Flynn Effect isn't real or that James Flynn has serious credibility issues? Scientists sometimes believe stupid shit that later turn out to be not true. Underestimating IQ of some African shithole country is very minor fuck up in comparison. Especially when take into consideration that Lynn had to go over hundreds of IQ papers while making his book.

and Rushton because he took money from the Pioneer Fund.

The is even worse argument than the first one. Receiving funds from some organization does not make you not credible. Sandra Scarr's research was also financed by Pioneer Fund, and she is well-known egalitarian. Is she not credible either?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Apologies for the late response. I did mean to answer your post sooner.

It is clear to them but it is not clear to the internet. How this paragraph managed to be transformed into "Lynn admitted to lying about his results" is just fascinating. I hope I don't have to explain to anyone the difference between lying and making a mistake. Lynn didn't went like "ha-ha-ha now I will pretend this is the IQ of Equatorial Guinea because God, I just hate black people so much. Fuck melanin!!!" I urge anyone who is not convinced whether Lynn's IQ maps can be trusted to either read this paper or chapters on IQ reliability and IQ validity in this book, p. 30-33.

With all due respect, I do believe Mr. Lynn put himself in a trap. For example, I may have been wrong to say he admitted to lying, but it hurts his credibility as a scientist that he still went ahead and published the data anyway. But it doesn't stop there. Whether do to incompetence or his own personal bias, his research seems to reflect using highly flawed and easy to debunk data.

ome criticisms have focused on the limited number of studies upon which the book is based. The IQ figures are based on 3 different studies for 17 nations, two studies for 30 nations, and one study for 34 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in the case of 81 countries out of the 185 countries studied. For 104 nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on the average IQ of surrounding nations.[2] The limited number of participants in some studies as well as outdated data has also been criticized. A test of 108 9- to 15-year-olds in Barbados, of 50 13- to 16-year-olds in Colombia, of 104 5- to 17-year-olds in Ecuador, of 129 6- to 12-year-olds in Egypt, and of 48 10- to 14-year-olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Criticism_of_data_sets

In other instances , I'm even skeptical of how did he get IQ data out of North Korea and why are North Koreans assumed to be of above average intelligence? Given it's both an impoverished nation, and a police state that doesn't really welcome foreigners unless it's for propaganda. China too also presents these variables.

Anyone who uses this argument should know that James Flynn used to argue back in 90s that asians have lower IQ than whites and that Stephen Jay Gould believed that humans can mate with monkeys. Does this mean Flynn Effect isn't real or that James Flynn has serious credibility issues? Scientists sometimes believe stupid shit that later turn out to be not true. Underestimating IQ of some African shithole country is very minor fuck up in comparison. Especially when take into consideration that Lynn had to go over hundreds of IQ papers while making his book.

Well in science, everything should be taken as a grain in salt. New evidence always comes along that displaces the old. So being fixated on one world view forever is a contradiction of what the scientific method is about. Now with Lynn, I rather take the chance and that he's 50/50 right. Just rationally speaking, I don't think he spent an entire lifetime of just picking fraudulent numbers and publishing them. But doing so in his own magazines (Mankind Quarterly?) also tells me he exists in his own echo chamber away from serious peer review. This type of IQ research really shouldn't be held back by any political barriers or biases. And I will explain this further with the next comparison.

The is even worse argument than the first one. Receiving funds from some organization does not make you not credible. Sandra Scarr's research was also financed by Pioneer Fund, and she is well-known egalitarian. Is she not credible either?

The Pioneer Fund is an optics nightmare to any normie. A quick google search of who they are, or who they were founded by will immediately scare people away from even taking these ideas seriously. For example, some people involved in the project are literal Eugenics, Segregationists, and National Socialist sympathizers. While this shouldn't be an argument against whether these [IQ charts] are fact, it does create an atmosphere that says there is an agenda being pushed. This is also confirmed by other [political] comments made by Richard Lynn and Rushton which implies there is a far-right slant in their work, as opposed to being neutral.

Now I know what you're going to say. "But what about Scientists who are also Liberal/Far-Left but still publish their findings?" This is where healthy skepticism comes in. If I read a paper debating the effects of diversity, but it comes from a known Communist organization, then I'm absolutely going to take that background into account and compare with other non-biased sources to come to a whole conclusion.

Sandra Scarr's research was also financed by Pioneer Fund, and she is well-known egalitarian. Is she not credible either?

The only source I could find says she did not get financed by them. At the bottom of the article. https://slate.com/culture/2007/12/a-response-to-liberal-creationism.html

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

With all due respect, I do believe Mr. Lynn put himself in a trap. For example, I may have been wrong to say he admitted to lying, but it hurts his credibility as a scientist that he still went ahead and published the data anyway.

I don't know what you mean here. He published them because he wasn't aware they are incorrect at the time. The last time Lynn used that data for Eq. Guinea was in his 2006 book. Then in 2010 Wicherts pointed that out and Lynn hasn't used that data ever since. He stopped publishing it after he learnt they were inaccurate. What else do you expect him to do?

Whether do to incompetence or his own personal bias, his research seems to reflect using highly flawed and easy to debunk data.

The IQ figures are based on 3 different studies for 17 nations, two studies for 30 nations, and one study for 34 nations.

Too bad they, nor the source they cite, name those studies but I assume one study they mean is Buj (1981) which estimated IQ for a bunch of European countries. But this is misleading because if you look at Appendix 1, Lynn typically cited two or three other studies alongside this one to estimate IQ of a given European country. This wiki editor made it seem like this one study and nothing else was used for 30 nations but this is not the case.

There were actual tests for IQ in the case of 81 countries out of the 185 countries studied. For 104 nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on the average IQ of surrounding nations.[2]

Yes, and this methodology was pretty valid as was shown in Lynn's 2006 book on p. 54-55 and in more detail in this paper. Sadly, wiki editors apparently haven't found enough time to include this information as well.

The limited number of participants in some studies as well as outdated data has also been criticized. A test of 108 9- to 15-year-olds in Barbados, of 50 13- to 16-year-olds in Colombia, of 104 5- to 17-year-olds in Ecuador, of 129 6- to 12-year-olds in Egypt, and of 48 10- to 14-year-olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.[3]

Right, intelligence testing in the third world is not very developed field and when you want to gather some estimates from there you can't afford to be picky. Even Wichert's datasets included bunch of papers with N = <100.

I don't understand why you are posting this though. This is not criticism of Lynn's research, this is criticism of Lynn's first book. I noticed a lot of Lynn's critics online are not familiar at all with Lynn's work. They seem to think there is a singular book/research he once made on world IQ. They are not aware that he wrote four books on this topic in the last 20 years. With each book having better methodology than the previous one. For example, in his 2002 book he gave direct measures for 81 countries and estimates for 104. In 2006 book it was 113 direct measures and 79 estimates. In 2012 book it was 161 direct and 41 estimates. He also started incorporating international testing data like PISA and TIMSS alongside IQ studies to calculate final IQ. This solved the issue of small sample sizes and missing IQ data for some countries. That's why most criticisms of Lynn you find online are about his first two books. Because there is not much to criticize about the later ones.

Now with Lynn, I rather take the chance and that he's 50/50 right. Just rationally speaking, I don't think he spent an entire lifetime of just picking fraudulent numbers and publishing them. But doing so in his own magazines (Mankind Quarterly?) also tells me he exists in his own echo chamber away from serious peer review. This type of IQ research really shouldn't be held back by any political barriers or biases. And I will explain this further with the next comparison.

Again, how is this relevant? His books on national IQ were not published in Mankind Quarterly. And books don't even get peer-reviewed. Or the fact that he's an editor of Mankind Quarterly taints everything else he publishes as well? Oh and peer-review is bogus system anyway.

The Pioneer Fund is an optics nightmare to any normie. A quick google search of who they are, or who they were founded by will immediately scare people away from even taking these ideas seriously. For example, some people involved in the project are literal Eugenics, Segregationists, and National Socialist sympathizers. While this shouldn't be an argument against whether these [IQ charts] are fact, it does create an atmosphere that says there is an agenda being pushed. This is also confirmed by other [political] comments made by Richard Lynn and Rushton which implies there is a far-right slant in their work, as opposed to being neutral.

You are using present tense but that's not appropriate here. The last directors of Pioneer Fund during the period when Lynn's books on world IQ were being published were Rushton and then Lynn. Neither of which are nazi supporters or segregationists. And yes, there were such directors in the past but so what? Every American company that existed since 1930s had eugenicists and segregationists in their board of directors at some point. Should people now stop buying Fords because Henry Ford liked Hitler and hated jews?

Now I know what you're going to say. "But what about Scientists who are also Liberal/Far-Left but still publish their findings?" This is where healthy skepticism comes in. If I read a paper debating the effects of diversity, but it comes from a known Communist organization, then I'm absolutely going to take that background into account and compare with other non-biased sources to come to a whole conclusion.

...

I say the same about research that comes out of Blacklivesmatter groups, or Communists or Democrats. We need data that has been peer reviewed outside of an echo chamber. Otherwise, we'll never get the whole story.

Why do you assume people can only be biased when they are part of some political organization? 25% of sociologists identify as marxists; democrats outnumber republicans among social scientists by ratios of 7:1; 0.3% of social psychologists identify as conservative. Do you think these people are not biased? Do you think peer-review is not an echo-chamber when you have three democrats and one marxist going over someone's paper? Just because they are not part of some organization? Expecting to find non-biased people in American social science departments is unachievable task.

The only source I could find says she did not get financed by them. At the bottom of the article.

I see, I must have mixed them up.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't know what you mean here. He published them because he wasn't aware they are incorrect at the time. The last time Lynn used that data for Eq. Guinea was in his 2006 book. Then in 2010 Wicherts pointed that out and Lynn hasn't used that data ever since. He stopped publishing it after he learnt they were inaccurate. What else do you expect him to do?

To be honest, it was the original map you linked to that had Lynn's work from 2002 and 2005 cited. It did mention 2010 at the end but according to Wicherts, those numbers are still wrong. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

I'm also aware that Lynn wrote a counter rebuttal but I'm not sure who to trust. Is one side lying? Even though Wicherts stated 76 is a more reasonable number and not 66?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247087393_The_average_IQ_of_sub-Saharan_Africans_assessed_by_the_Progressive_Matrices_A_reply_to_Wicherts_Dolan_Carlson_van_der_Maas

Too bad they, nor the source they cite, name those studies but I assume one study they mean is Buj (1981) which estimated IQ for a bunch of European countries. But this is misleading because if you look at Appendix 1, Lynn typically cited two or three other studies alongside this one to estimate IQ of a given European country. This wiki editor made it seem like this one study and nothing else was used for 30 nations but this is not the case.

I'll make a note of this.

Yes, and this methodology was pretty valid as was shown in Lynn's 2006 book on p. 54-55 and in more detail in this paper. Sadly, wiki editors apparently haven't found enough time to include this information as well.

Even without going into the specifics of his method, does this not fall under two fallacies: confirmation bias and correlation does not imply causation? Again, I've never heard of scientists going into North Korea and returning back with IQ Tests, without passing Communist censorship. I would apply this example for other dictatorships as well. Cuba, Turkmenistan, hell, even Equatorial Guinea that was in the original example can be defined as this.

Rather than geography being an explanation, his method is actually proof of history and social standing are bigger factors? For example, Europe in general is pretty rich, has good healthcare and access to education, so it's not a surprise they all cluster together. But then go back 50 years ago, and Europe was a more divided continent, with widespread malnutrition and political repression being more common on the Iron Curtain side, as opposed to the Capitalist one.

Right, intelligence testing in the third world is not very developed field and when you want to gather some estimates from there you can't afford to be picky. Even Wichert's datasets included bunch of papers with N = <100.

Wouldn't this imply that IQ estimates of the third world are incredibly unreliable? Like sure, put up a number. But then there's a difference in actually believing these differences come from genetic factors, and not social and environmental ones. Like the North Korea/South Korea example. North Korea at one point was more industrial than its neighbor. But after the South Korean dictatorship fell, the country has seen better prosperity, whereas North Korea's remained stagnant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea#/media/File:Two_koreas_gdp_1950_1977.jpg

In 2006 book it was 113 direct measures and 79 estimates. In 2012 book it was 161 direct and 41 estimates. He also started incorporating international testing data like PISA and TIMSS alongside IQ studies to calculate final IQ. This solved the issue of small sample sizes and missing IQ data for some countries. That's why most criticisms of Lynn you find online are about his first two books. Because there is not much to criticize about the later ones.

PISA goes back to the example of Communist/Dictatorship nations rigging their tests for propaganda points. If Lynn is using that as proof or a correlation, it once again, seems flawed.

https://ncee.org/2020/01/are-chinas-pisa-scores-believable-a-different-view/

In fact, maybe it's not just China to blame. PISA has been criticized for measuring economic success, not education.

https://theconversation.com/problems-with-pisa-why-canadians-should-be-skeptical-of-the-global-test-118096

Again, how is this relevant? His books on national IQ were not published in Mankind Quarterly. And books don't even get peer-reviewed. Or the fact that he's an editor of Mankind Quarterly taints everything else he publishes as well? Oh and peer-review is bogus system anyway.

That's why I prefer healthy skepticism instead of having to choose one over the other. It's either that, or actual bipartisan research so neither side can claim bias, since they both came up with the same answers.

You are using present tense but that's not appropriate here. The last directors of Pioneer Fund during the period when Lynn's books on world IQ were being published were Rushton and then Lynn. Neither of which are nazi supporters or segregationists. And yes, there were such directors in the past but so what? Every American company that existed since 1930s had eugenicists and segregationists in their board of directors at some point. Should people now stop buying Fords because Henry Ford liked Hitler and hated jews?

It's unique, because the organization did push similar studies to advance their own agenda. Apologies for paraphrasing, but Mankind Quarterly was actually a direct result of the supreme court striking down segregation, along with IQ arguments that were used to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education#Topeka

I agree that Rushton and Lynn are not actually NeoNazis, but it could be argued there were other quirks about them that made their research seem untrustworthy. For example, Rushton once had this obsession of asking people for their penis sizes, which he tried to form a relationship with the brain...

https://westerngazette.ca/opinion/the-time-western-allowed-academic-freedom-to-go-too-far/article_7d54033a-2757-11e9-83c6-0fdae69d0a52.html

As for people to stop purchasing Ford's Cars, are they in the business of selling a product, or persuading people to believe a certain way? Maybe if Ford continued to print more newspapers that focused on race, their could be an argument against supporting the company.

Why do you assume people can only be biased when they are part of some political organization? 25% of sociologists identify as marxists; democrats outnumber republicans among social scientists by ratios of 7:1; 0.3% of social psychologists identify as conservative. Do you think these people are not biased? Do you think peer-review is not an echo-chamber when you have three democrats and one marxist going over someone's paper? Just because they are not part of some organization? Expecting to find non-biased people in American social science departments is unachievable task.

Biases exist, and its up to everyone to rightfully point out glaring examples when they exist. The case for this actually grows stronger, when more people conflate personal feelings with that of tried and true topics that were never meant to be political. For example, I saw an article the other day that California seriously wants to punish Math class as being "racist". Yet even with the millions of dollars they're about to waste on this project, I'm only concerned about what proof do they have. When/if their research turns up nothing, it's just another day that went by with the scientific method winning out in the end.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm also aware that Lynn wrote a counter rebuttal but I'm not sure who to trust. Is one side lying? Even though Wicherts stated 76 is a more reasonable number and not 66?

Wicherts thinks it's 82. The 76 number is only if you go by Raven's matrices IIRC. And Lynn recently updated his figure for Africa from 67 to 71 in his 2015 book on race and IQ. Largely thanks to Becker's dataset. l personally think it's somewhere in low 70s. That number is obtained by both IQ tests and international tests. Here is a good write up on that https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-of-sub-saharan-africa/

Even without going into the specifics of his method, does this not fall under two fallacies: confirmation bias and correlation does not imply causation? Again, I've never heard of scientists going into North Korea and returning back with IQ Tests, without passing Communist censorship. I would apply this example for other dictatorships as well. Cuba, Turkmenistan, hell, even Equatorial Guinea that was in the original example can be defined as this.

North Korean IQ was used one and only time in Lynn's 2012 book and the source he give for that is CIA's The World Factbook 2011. So it was probably their estimate of education that he converted to IQ scores.

Rather than geography being an explanation, his method is actually proof of history and social standing are bigger factors? For example, Europe in general is pretty rich, has good healthcare and access to education, so it's not a surprise they all cluster together.

This is largely irrelevant. We were discussing whether estimating IQ of nations by its neighbors is a valid method. And we apparently agree. But whether it is because they are ethnically similar or they have similar social standing is beyond the point. And I don't want to get into THAT debate here.

PISA goes back to the example of Communist/Dictatorship nations rigging their tests for propaganda points. If Lynn is using that as proof or a correlation, it once again, seems flawed.

https://ncee.org/2020/01/are-chinas-pisa-scores-believable-a-different-view/

We have IQ tests from China as well and they actually got higher result than PISA (104 vs 103). We also have data from Taiwan and Hong Kong which are basically capitalist mini Chinas and they both got higher score than China (106 and 105 vs 104). If Chinese government is lying they're not very good at it.

In fact, maybe it's not just China to blame. PISA has been criticized for measuring economic success, not education.

https://theconversation.com/problems-with-pisa-why-canadians-should-be-skeptical-of-the-global-test-118096

Holy fuck this article is something else.

"PISA measures math, science and reading skills, not more holistic educational goals or understanding of literacy as defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). ... PISA ignores the importance of engagement and positive attitudes to learning for future success. .... Educational outcomes that are important for future citizens or a well-rounded education are not captured: for example, democratic participation, understanding of history and politics, teamwork, well-being, moral values, creativity, aesthetic skills, athletic talent or communication skills. "

How could anyone wrote this with a straight face? This is like the Simpsons episode where in girl math classes they are discussing feelings about numbers.

"Even though PISA use is spreading globally, and is translated into national languages, it is still framed by Western understandings and may distort results from students with diverse social and cultural histories."

Why are Asians scoring higher than Westerns then?

"There is a co-relation between poverty and lower test results: the OECD notes that up to 46 per cent of the differences in PISA mathematics scores among OECD countries can be explained by socio-economic disadvantage."

Yes, there is correlation so what? They don't know the direction of causality. Might as well be that PISA scores explain 46% of gap in SES disadvantage. This is closer to the truth since controlling for GDP per capita narrows the IQ gap between white and black countries only by 4 IQ points. https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/

PISA is a very good measure of education as well as IQ. All these educational tests PISA includes are all components of intelligence. That's why there is 0.907 correlation between PISA and IQ scores. Just like there is high correlation between IQ and GPA within nations. Or between IQ and SAT. If PISA isn't good measure of education nothing else is either.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wicherts thinks it's 82. The 76 number is only if you go by Raven's matrices IIRC. And Lynn recently updated his figure for Africa from 67 to 71 in his 2015 book on race and IQ. Largely thanks to Becker's dataset. l personally think it's somewhere in low 70s. That number is obtained by both IQ tests and international tests. Here is a good write up on that https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iq-of-sub-saharan-africa/

If I'm reading that chart correctly, Alt-Hype is using international test scores that are as old as 1984 (despite publishing that article in 2016). He also admits that a lot of African countries have missing data and that South Africa is more heavily weighted in this chart (which is more multicultural compared to its neighbors). The rest of the article both try and make their arguments for some kind of geographical average, but this is disingenuous. Is it really fair to stereotype all of Africa being the same despite examples of Botswana, Ghana and even Rwanda have rising standards of living over time? It's believable that a low IQ nation exists, but it's not so static that these numbers from the 1980s are suppose to be representative of today's world. In fact, there has been a follow up study done in Kenya, that showed they have gained significant IQ points from 1984 ~ 1998.

... Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, and Neumann (2003) found an IQ gain of 19 points per decade over 14 years (between 1984 and 1998) in rural Kenya children. The authors considered mother's education, family structure, and children's nutrition and health as possible explanations for this intriguingly large gain (Daley et al., 2003).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349749784_The_role_of_short-term_changes_in_cognitive_capacity_on_economic_expenditure_among_Kenyan_agro-pastoralists

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10764139_IQ_on_the_Rise_The_Flynn_Effect_in_Rural_Kenyan_Children

This is largely irrelevant. We were discussing whether estimating IQ of nations by its neighbors is a valid method. And we apparently agree.

In context only. I expect wealthy nations to be similar, but also if we can actually prove it. Europe nearly 30 years ago, was still under the Iron Curtain. Writing in Capitalist German IQ scores for that of the Socialist Germans despite bordering each other would have been inaccurate. And strangely enough, Lynn would agree with me here since he was involved in this project.

https://reason.com/2012/08/07/nations-smart-rich-wealth-creation/

Let's look at Germany. Lynn and Vanhanen cited four studies that found that West German IQ scores ranged from 99 to 107, whereas East German IQs were as low as 90 back in 1967, and later studies pegged their scores at 97 to 99 points. Taking the extremes, these data imply a gap as big as 17 IQ points between West and East Germans. How to account for the rise East Germany in less than a generation of 7 to 9 points? After all, East and West Germans are not all that genetically different. Lynn's data now show an average German IQ of 102 points

So I'm not in favor of using correlation to mean causation with geography without knowing what the nation's background is. Even when you look at Asia too, a similar problem exists. China is massive and it borders India, which also borders Myanmar, who then borders Thailand/Vietnam/Philippines. And the numbers are all over the place (105, 82, 90, 86)?

We have IQ tests from China as well and they actually got higher result than PISA (104 vs 103). We also have data from Taiwan and Hong Kong which are basically capitalist mini Chinas and they both got higher score than China (106 and 105 vs 104). If Chinese government is lying they're not very good at it.

You have to give me a good reason why should I ever take China's word seriously, when this is the same country that just let a virus infect the entire earth, but today they claim their own country is virus free? It's an unfortunate example since I don't doubt there are a lot smart Chinese people (just by virtue of having the biggest population on Earth), but at the same time, being a dictatorship, they are expected to behave and act a certain way that meets State expectations since the punishments for not doing so is jail time, "disappearances" or even death. For example, a 2011 study found that plagiarism and cheating is rampant in Chinese students applying for schooling in the U.S. At least 90% of them were viewed this way. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/the-china-conundrum.html?pagewanted=all

Zinch China, a consulting company that advises American colleges and universities about China, last year published a report based on interviews with 250 Beijing high school students bound for the United States, their parents, and a dozen agents and admissions consultants. The company concluded that 90 percent of Chinese applicants submit false recommendations, 70 percent have other people write their personal essays, 50 percent have forged high school transcripts and 10 percent list academic awards and other achievements they did not receive. The “tide of application fraud,” the report predicted, will likely only worsen as more students go to America.

How could anyone wrote this with a straight face? This is like the Simpsons episode where in girl math classes they are discussing feelings about numbers.

To be honest, the article does raise one good point that often isn't taken into consideration. Although it's more related to IQ Testing than PISA, but how well a student is motivated can certainly affect test scores.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/motivation-may-influence-iq-scores

In one part of the study, the scientists reviewed 46 previous experiments that examined how financial incentives affect IQ scores. The analysis included data on more than 2,000 test-takers, mostly between the ages of 6 and 18. The scientists found that material rewards, such as money, boosted IQ scores noticeably, by about 2/3 of a standard deviation (SD), or about 10 IQ points. The effect was greatest for people who started out with lower scores. Those with an initial score below 100 showed an increase of nearly 1 SD, or about 15 IQ points. In the second part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, which followed 250 boys from adolescence to early adulthood. The boys were videotaped around age 12 while taking an IQ test. Each student’s level of motivation was rated by 3 trained observers, who reviewed 20 minutes of footage and looked for behaviors that might indicate attentiveness or lack of interest in the test. The scientists found that the students’ IQ scores accurately predicted later outcomes in life, including academic performance in adolescence, criminal convictions, employment and years of education in early adulthood. However, when the researchers corrected for the influence of test motivation, the predictive power of the IQ scores dropped substantially, especially for non-academic outcomes.

This is not to discredit any test or say they're worthless. But I can see an argument to be made that certain mood levels and incentivized rewards could play a role in how people attain their best performance.

By the way, this is a good discussion. Don't feel like I'm pressuring you or trying to make you look bad. This is the type of debates I'm interested in that carefully weights evidence on both sides to reach a higher level of understanding.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I'm reading that chart correctly, Alt-Hype is using international test scores that are as old as 1984 (despite publishing that article in 2016). He also admits that a lot of African countries have missing data and that South Africa is more heavily weighted in this chart (which is more multicultural compared to its neighbors). The rest of the article both try and make their arguments for some kind of geographical average, but this is disingenuous. Is it really fair to stereotype all of Africa being the same despite examples of Botswana, Ghana and even Rwanda have rising standards of living over time?

You can compare the test results from recent years in the article. There is really no increase over time. Here are PISA and TIMSS results for Africa from post-2000. Still, low as always.

It's believable that a low IQ nation exists, but it's not so static that these numbers from the 1980s are suppose to be representative of today's world. In fact, there has been a follow up study done in Kenya, that showed they have gained significant IQ points from 1984 ~ 1998.

Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, and Neumann (2003) found an IQ gain of 19 points per decade over 14 years (between 1984 and 1998) in rural Kenya children. The authors considered mother's education, family structure, and children's nutrition and health as possible explanations for this intriguingly large gain (Daley et al., 2003).

I'm aware of this study. Here are some others from Kenya: https://i.ibb.co/4KkmpFv/obr-zok.png. In the context of all other studies from Kenya, the 87 figure is clearly a fluke. Also, IQ of blacks in the US is 85 so it's hard to imagine how third world population would have higher IQ than the first world one. The only way you can argue for this number is to ignore the rest and say that environment has no effect whatsoever.

In context only. I expect wealthy nations to be similar, but also if we can actually prove it. Europe nearly 30 years ago, was still under the Iron Curtain. Writing in Capitalist German IQ scores for that of the Socialist Germans despite bordering each other would have been inaccurate. And strangely enough, Lynn would agree with me here since he was involved in this project.

https://reason.com/2012/08/07/nations-smart-rich-wealth-creation/

Let's look at Germany. Lynn and Vanhanen cited four studies that found that West German IQ scores ranged from 99 to 107, whereas East German IQs were as low as 90 back in 1967, and later studies pegged their scores at 97 to 99 points. Taking the extremes, these data imply a gap as big as 17 IQ points between West and East Germans. How to account for the rise East Germany in less than a generation of 7 to 9 points? After all, East and West Germans are not all that genetically different. Lynn's data now show an average German IQ of 102 points

Okay so, the 107 number is from Buj (1981) who has been criticized by Rinderman for having results inconsistent with other IQ studies as well as having standard deviations all over the place. Lynn defended him though I would take his numbers with a grain of salt. Amren links quite a few replies to that article. Vdare article points out several counter-exmaples to Unz, Peter Frost attributes it to truancy.

"If I could rewrite this text, I would point out more clearly that the IQ difference between West Germany and East Germany probably reflected differences in truancy. The more leniently a school treats absenteeism the higher it will score on IQ tests, since the truants tend to be problem students. But the higher IQ score is illusory. ... Who were those truants? Some had legitimate excuses, but most were problem students who were "playing hookey." So right there you have a serious source of bias. The more a school allows absenteeism, the higher its IQ scores will be. This is the main reason why IQ scores were lower in East Germany than in West Germany. DDR youth were terrified of being sent to a juvenile detention center."

I looked at other post-Soviet nations in Lynn's dataset that had IQ tests taken one during socialism one during capitalism to see if transition to free market had any impact. Most of them had no change. Bulgaria - 94 in 1981 and 91 in 1998. Czechia - 100 in 1972 and 96 in 1995. Poland, funnily enough, had decrease from 106 to 92 between 1981 and 1991. Again the Buj study. Slovakia - 97 in 1963 and 100 in 2000. Hungary - 98 in 1981 and 100 in 2011. And so on and so on.

This is just Unz cherry-picking as he does. Most of countries IQs clustered together and had no change in either direction. For countries with two or more IQs, the correlation between the two extreme numbers was 0.93.

You have to give me a good reason why should I ever take China's word seriously

This is the best that I can do I'm afraid. The last paragraph showed that having socialist economy does not depress national IQ so you can go by data from Taiwan and Hong Kong an safely assume that China's IQ would be about the same.

This is not to discredit any test or say they're worthless. But I can see an argument to be made that certain mood levels and incentivized rewards could play a role in how people attain their best performance.

For that argument to be more than a speculation you would have to show that different groups have different levels of motivation. IQ predicts life outcomes equally well for everyone so there isn't bias of any sort on IQ tests.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can compare the test results from recent years in the article. There is really no increase over time. Here are PISA and TIMSS results for Africa from post-2000. Still, low as always

Don't take this as a cop-out, but I do have some explanations for this.

  1. Brain drain.

It's a catch-22 cycle. For anyone with above average IQ and wants to escape poverty, why choose to stay behind as opposed to moving somewhere else? I'm aware though this argument could be used for every continent. So how can I prove this disproportionately effects Africa? Fortunately enough, I did find an article covering emigration trends in Africa, and a majority of respondents said they would rather leave their country then stay. The number was as high as 75% for Nigerians, and 43% at the lowest for Tanzanians. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/03/22/at-least-a-million-sub-saharan-africans-moved-to-europe-since-2010/

In fact, maybe this argument might gain traction. From the same article, it says 6% of Ghana's entire population had applied for a lottery that grants them the chance to move to the U.S. The only requirements was internet access, and having a highschool diploma.

For example, 1.7 million Ghanaians (or 6% of Ghana’s population) applied for the U.S. diversity lottery in 2015, even when only 50,000 people worldwide are permitted to move each year to the U.S. through this visa program. In the same year, other sub-Saharan African countries, such as the Republic of Congo (10%), Liberia (8%) and Sierra Leone (8%) saw high shares of their populations apply for the lottery. Although the lottery only requires an online application and the completion of a high school diploma for eligibility, the high number of applicants underscores the seriousness with which many sub-Saharan Africans contemplate and actively pursue migrating abroad.

  1. Corruption & Ongoing War

Even in the last 30 years, Africa's continent has been hit by some devastating civil wars and tribalism. While this might sound like an argument that it's a self perpetuating cycle from Low IQ, it's fair to point out that foreign intervention and decolonization did do a lot of damage in destabilizing the continent. Without a proper functioning government that actually works for the people and not a dictator/foreign interests, life in Africa becomes more about survival rather than having the means to actually get an education or go to school safely.

So without sounding like a complete Liberal and whining about colonization, how can I actually prove that a stable Africa will result in better test results? I'll use the country of Botswana as proof of this.

I found a study that actually points out Botswana, despite being one of the richest African countries, has children failing 1+1 math problems. And while this failure might sound genetic at first, the government actually took on an entirely new education system, and completely reversed those depressing test scores.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2019/10/31/taking-education-back-to-the-basics-at-scale-in-botswana/

In 2018, Botswana’s Ministry of Basic Education (MoBE) signed a 4-year Memorandum of Understanding with Young 1ove to scale TaRL in three regions and develop a plan for national scale. Since then, Young 1ove, in partnership with MoBE, the Ministry of Youth Empowerment, Sport, and Culture Development, and UNICEF, has piloted and implemented TaRL in 10 percent of schools across Botswana. Early results from these efforts are promising. The most recent results from the last round of implementation reveal that over 82 percent of participating students gained numeracy skills, the percentage of students who can do division jumped from 12 percent to 76 percent, and the percentage of innumerate students dropped from 13 percent to 1 percent after 30 hours of TaRL instruction.

I'll admit though, this is just one sample size, since Africa has numerous countries. But even for me, this was the first time I learned of such a program that did succeed in bringing literacy and numeracy to the masses.

I'm aware of this study. Here are some others from Kenya: https://i.ibb.co/4KkmpFv/obr-zok.png PNG . In the context of all other studies from Kenya, the 87 figure is clearly a fluke. Also, IQ of blacks in the US is 85 so it's hard to imagine how third world population would have higher IQ than the first world one. The only way you can argue for this number is to ignore the rest and say that environment has no effect whatsoever.

America is a very diverse country, that different regions have their own IQ patterns. The same can be said within races. West Virginia (the poorest White State) has an average IQ of 98. Whereas rich ones like Massachusetts is higher at 104.

https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-compared-average-iq-score-in-all-50-states-results-are-eye-opening.html

Now I will admit I do have to look for data that compares black test scores by region but in the mean time, I do recall seeing another study from 2 years ago that showed statistical noise in intelligence based on whether blacks identified with their European/mixed race heritage or not.

https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1296837437923172353

Edit: I'm not sure why it keeps linking to the Brazil map first. But scroll down and you'll find the chart with the U.S black/european noise.

I looked at other post-Soviet nations in Lynn's dataset that had IQ tests taken one during socialism one during capitalism to see if transition to free market had any impact. Most of them had no change. Bulgaria - 94 in 1981 and 91 in 1998. Czechia - 100 in 1972 and 96 in 1995. Poland, funnily enough, had decrease from 106 to 92 between 1981 and 1991. Again the Buj study. Slovakia - 97 in 1963 and 100 in 2000. Hungary - 98 in 1981 and 100 in 2011. And so on and so on. This is just Unz cherry-picking as he does. Most of countries IQs clustered together and had no change in either direction. For countries with two or more IQs, the correlation between the two extreme numbers was 0.93.

Hmmm, doesn't this scenario present a contradiction with how IQ data is actually collected? Numbers that go up or down after the collapse, even though it's known that the Soviet Union always had food production problems? Or how about a few decades prior, when IQ testing was used for Europeans who immigrated to the U.S but somehow scored lower?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230435620_Intelligence_Tests_and_Immigration_to_the_United_States_1900-1940

This is the best that I can do I'm afraid. The last paragraph showed that having socialist economy does not depress national IQ so you can go by data from Taiwan and Hong Kong an safely assume that China's IQ would be about the same.

China has more nations that border it to the South, that according to the IQ map, are still in the 82 ~ 94 range. I can't think of a reason to pick one over the other, especially as Vietnam is a Socialist nation, but is considered behind the rest.

For that argument to be more than a speculation you would have to show that different groups have different levels of motivation. IQ predicts life outcomes equally well for everyone so there isn't bias of any sort on IQ tests.

Surprisingly, I've just come across a variety of articles on this subject, but the outcomes are all over the place. For example, one study says poor Black success is not from a lack of trying, but it then goes on to say the U.S education system in general is behind several other nations.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2526&context=doctoral

While African Americans lag behind their European American counterparts, American students also lag behind other students worldwide. Globally, students in United States rank 62nd in math proficiency and 17th in reading proficiency (Peterson, Woessmann, Hanushek & LastraAnadon, 2011). According to Peterson et al. (2011), the U.S reading proficiency rate is 31%, compared to other countries such as Korea (47%), Singapore and New Zealand (42%), Japan and Canada (41%), Australia (38%) and Belgium (37%). These numbers indicate a larger problem with academic achievement in the United States. Students sit in the same classes, learning the same curriculum from the same teacher, and yet disparities in achievement are evident. To give all students the education they deserve, it is important to determine what factors contribute to these disparities.

Another study has the motivation levels in complete reverse. There was a positive relation with GPA scores and motivation, but it was only for the majority [white?] students.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-018-9840-3

In this study, autonomous motivation had a positive association with GPA through achieving strategy for the ethnic majority students only. It might be that the size of the minority groups was too small to detect differences or that other factors mediate these relations in ethnic minority students. Qualitative research is needed to identify other factors influencing the academic performance of ethnic minority students and what they experience during their education, in order to support their learning in the right manner.

Again, I've found many articles on this. I don't know where it starts, and it where it possibly ends.

[–]Fourth_stage 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Lynns findings were replicated by Becker though and i dont really see a problem with pioneer fund.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry for the long response, I just got back to responding to the other guy.

The problem with the pioneer fund is the organization is lead by Eugenics, Segregationists, and National Socialist sympathizers. Unfortunately, politics and science is something that should not exist. And having far-right biases like that ruins any sense of neutrality that exists in their research. I say the same about research that comes out of Blacklivesmatter groups, or Communists or Democrats. We need data that has been peer reviewed outside of an echo chamber. Otherwise, we'll never get the whole story.

By the way, can I get a background on who this Becker person is? When searching for him, his name popped up in an article that funnily enough, was criticizing inaccurate European datasets.

https://globalvoices.org/2019/07/12/pseudoscientific-racial-theories-by-discredited-british-psychologist-keep-going-viral-in-the-balkans/

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

Thank you for the reply

The problem is not many want to fund research on controversial topics, that why pioneer fund was useful and helped to expand knowledge on human biodiversity https://vdare.com/articles/pioneer-fundophobia

By the way, can I get a background on who this Becker person is?

Here is his world IQ project https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's plenty. Look into race and IQ differences, heritability of IQ, race and crime, heritability of political views, race differences in brain size PNG , differences in all kinds of skeleto-muscular traits PNG like pelvis shape or femur length. Where to begin? Actually - start at AltHype's "Existence of Race".

One more to add, differences in gestation length

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/33/1/107/668109

The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks in Blacks and Asians and 40 weeks in white Europeans.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The second group comprises women from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, hereafter called Asian.

Is there any British study that doesn't do this shit?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems to be a regional thing. Not sure how that caught on. Thanks for pointing that out.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The fact that your DNA (e.g. 23andMe) can pinpoint your parents' hometown in cases I've seen.

The chip doesn't fall far from the block. Sheep don't give birth to cows. Chinese don't give birth to Africans. Come on.

[–]Fourth_stage 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for visiting this place

Much like the harvard article, in other scientific articles I see that we can’t draw any clear lines between different races based on either appearance or genes

Those are pop science articles written by people who have weird understanding about taxonomy, if you look at animal subspecies, many of them dont have clear lines separating them either.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ask this thing: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-49599148