Our Dumb World

National_IQ_per_country_-_estimates_by_Lynn_and_Vanhanen_2006

As far as average IQ scores go, this is what the world looks like. But there are two relevant tests: the Stanford-Binet, and life itself. If a country scored low on IQ but at the same time led the world in Cavorite production, or cured cancer, or built spindizzies, we would say “screw Stanford-Binet”, and we would be right to do so.

Does that happen? Are there countries with low average scores that tear up the technological track? Mostly not – generally, fairly high average IQ seems to be a prerequisite for creativity in science and mathematics. Necessary, although not sufficient: bad choices (Communism), having the world kick you in the crotch (Mongols), or toxic intellectual fads can all make smart peoples unproductive.

The exceptions, such as they are, seem to be a result of strong population substructure. India has a low average IQ, but there are distinct subpopulations (castes) that apparently have much higher IQ – although I’d love to see some decent studies on this. With numbers.

A population with a low average has drastically fewer people that exceed a high threshold – should, anyhow, if the distribution is much like a gaussian. This means that most of the world with average scores well below 100 produces very few sharp cookies, and thus I wouldn’t expect them to do much in the way of scientific and technical innovation. Nor do they.

So when you hear about even a few people with impressive intellectual accomplishments from a country whose average IQ is not very high, you suspect population substructure. Which is why I suspect that there is significant population substructure in Iran. But maybe there’s something else going on?

Of course classes are an example of substructure: higher socioeconomic groups usually have higher average scores, and most of that difference is probably genetic. If recruiting and retaining people into the upper classes goes up with IQ, then the upper classes will be smarter – some, anyhow. It’s not inevitable – certainly isn’t true in the UAE.

So as a population evolves from egalitarian tribesmen to a more hierarchical society, you may see a higher fraction of people with IQ above high threshold X, X being what you need to make progress on Diophantine equations, or write the Popol Vuh, or whatever. Even if the average IQ of the population as a whole does not change. In the same way, if someone comes in and chases off your upper classes to France, or simply kills everyone living in a city, that fraction is going to go down. Decapitation. Moreover, those fewer smart cookies left are probably less likely to meet and cooperate.

You could improve the situation, raise the average, by selection for IQ. But that takes a long time, and I know of no case where it was done on purpose. You could decrease inbreeding, for example by banning cousin marriage. That only takes one generation. You could make environmental improvements, iodine supplementation being the best understood. People assume that there are a lot of other important environmental variables, but I sure don’t know what they are. In practice the rank ordering of populations seem to be the same everywhere, which is not what you would expect if there were strong, malleable environmental influences.

Let me expand a little on that.  Diasporas track. The populations that scored low at home score low in new lands: those that scored high continue to score high.  Chinese that entered Malaysia as illiterate tin miners end up doing well in a few generations: Japanese that moved to Brazil to pick coffee are high achievers now.

Is it easy to notice such differences? Well, for ordinary people, it’s real easy. Herero would ask Henry why Europeans were so smart – he said he didn’t know. But with the right education, it apparently becomes impossible to see. Few anthropologists know that such differences exist and even fewer admit it. I’m sure that most have never even read any psychometrics – more importantly, they ignore their lying eyes. Economists generally reject such explanations, which is one reason that they find most of the Third World impossible to understand. I must give credit to Garret Jones, who is actually aware of this general pattern. Sure, he stepped on the dick of his own argument there at the end of his book, but he was probably lying, because he had to. Sociologists? It is to laugh.

Generally, you could say that the major job of social science is making sure that people do not know this map. Not knowing has its attractions: practically every headline is a surprise. The world must seem ever fresh and new to the dis-illuminati – something like being Henry Molaison, who had his hippocampus removed by a playful neurosurgeon and afterwards could not create new explicit memories.

So when we tried a new intervention aimed at eliminating the GAP, and it failed, Molaison was surprised, even if 47 similar programs had already failed. Neurologically, he was much like a professor of education.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

430 Responses to Our Dumb World

  1. magusjanus says:

    What do you think is the best way to “fix” the problem (by which I don’t mean low IQ populations, but rather the refusal of smart Western elites to recognize reality at all in this subject matter)?

    Is it a drip-drop of increasing quantitative evidence? It seems if they’re able to ignore phenotypic evidence then they should have no problem ignoring the genetic evidence.

    100 years ago most of the Western Elite knew reality. Now they don’t. How do we reverse that? It’s not inevitable that they’re deluded forever… they should (probably) wake up eventually, no? Maybe some direct hit to their children’s competitiveness; for now low IQ immigration (mostly) hits the middle-class and poor, not the elite’s in expensive zip codes.

    But if we have East Asians genetically engineering their kids even smarter in 10 years through PGD, and heck worst of all middle to lower class “racist” whites doing the same, then the elites will HAVE to recognize reality in some form else their precious snowflake will have reduced odds of getting into Dalton, Ivy, Goldman, etc.

    I’m curious what you think is the best way to “get” to the elites and make them open their eyes.

    • Some Troll's Serious Discussion Alt says:

      First there’s the other problem. How to stop them from taking that knowledge and doing something really crazy with it.

      Talking with members of the liberal consensus about the issue at length, I sometimes get the sense that their actual views about race and human rights in general are downright brutal. That the only reason they believe in equality-as-in-deserving-dignity is because they believe in equality-as-in-ability, and letting go of one would mean discarding both.

      Convincing them of The Truth isn’t worth it if they flip their lids and start building concentration camps or what have you.

    • Darin says:

      yes, 100 years ago Western elites were so very bright and realistic.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme

    • Each bit of narrative seems related to the others, so that it is something of an impenetrable wall, or tangle of thorns which prevents understanding. You pull out one bit and stake it onto the gibbet, but they move to another before you are finished.

      Perhaps whack-a-mole is a better analogy.

      To call it a religious belief is to insult the major religions. There is much more variety of thought among Roman Catholics (despite their reputation) than there is among social scientists. You have to go full cultist to get into their territory. We hope that one domino will bring down a line of other ideas, or one brick pulled from the foundation will upend the entire structure (because that is what happened to us, however slowly). I no longer think that is true.

    • Before there can be genetic engineering of smarter kids there has to be the ability to look at a genome and find over 50% of what make’s up a persons genetic IQ. When that happens it will be a game changer. The evidence will be available all over the place, every single person’s DNA can prove it. Of course things won’t change immediately but it will be the beginning of the end for all the people who need to believe that we were all created equal. That belief will be on the road to being marginalized much like creationism is today. When they take a large number of people from these different countries and lo and behold the variation is still there I suppose they can be like the creationists and say the devil put all those fossils in the ground but they are then going be close to that kind of stupid and silly.

      But hold on the real drama hasn’t started yet. Shorty on the heels of that discovery will be some rude upstarts somewhere who sell the service of making your next baby the upper 10% of what your child could be. Somewhere people will hitting each other with protest signs and I hope to be alive and well and laughing at youtube videos of all the hubbub.

    • melendwyr says:

      Your questions carry the implicit assumption that the elites are passively ignorant and only have to be reached out to. No.

      Their eyes are closed because they’re squeezing them shut; they’re not ignorant of the facts, they are actively ignoring them and trying to persuade others to ignore them. They already know the emperor has no clothes, and their interests lie entirely in pretending that he isn’t. What motivation could you apply that would be stronger than their existing motivations?

      • Jim says:

        I’m rather puzzled by what the elites really believe. Does Bill Gates really believe all the guff he talks about “closing the gap”? Sometimes I think “Of course they don’t really believe what they pretend to”. Other times I think “My God, they actually believe all this nonsense”.

        I suppose Maduro really believes he has done a swell job of running the Venezuelan economy and all the country’s problems are due to the US. Of course if the US really could inflict all that economic damage the smartest thing for Venezuela would be unconditional surrender.

        The world sometime seems to be run by madmen.

        • melendwyr says:

          It varies from elite to elite, and sometimes from topic to topic. I don’t doubt that many people have engaged in wishful thinking founded in ignorance on certain topics. But as a whole, no, lots of people know what they’re saying is nonsense. But they think that acknowledging the truth would be disastrous, assuming they have benevolent motives at all.

          • gcochran9 says:

            You’re opining. If you had experience of even a few such people (‘elites’) letting their hair down and revealing their controversial personal opinions, it would more than just opining, but I doubt if that is the case.

            • Jim says:

              Yes, I can’t read Bill Gates mind. I can only know what he says in public. Also I sometimes wonder if it really matters what Bill Gates “really believes”. His actions would still probably be in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy even if he “really” doesn’t believe it.

            • melendwyr says:

              It’s true that I have no experience of elites like Bill Gates. But on a much smaller scale, I’ve spoken with people in charge of complex social institutions. And what they say in private bears very little resemblance to what they say publicly.

        • Anon says:

          I doubt it’s ignorance. These people didn’t get where they are by being stupid.

          It’s either pure, unapologetic altruism or the fact that modern economies(and modern economic elites) have a demand for low IQ, low wage work forces. Carelessness also plays a role. Basically, the rich remain mostly unaffected by the poor or stupid, their wealth allowing them to segregate, and either they don’t think about the long term future when these people will make up a majority of the population or don’t care and will think they’ll be able to segregate in gated communities like rich Portuguese Brazilians or white South Africans.

          To answer your question, no I don’t think he believes that, I think he and his colleagues need open borders and a low IQ workforce to make more money(not Gates specifically, as his low wage work is mostly done in China and his actual Microsoft employees will be mostly educated, but definitely other big business).

          The myth of immigration being unprofitable is just that, a myth, unfortunately. I read somewhere on a website that 80% of German Turks are on welfare, and that simply isn’t the case. They’re a burden to the average German, yes, but most of them still do work, mostly in the job natives don’t want to do, will be an economic burden when they make up 50%+ of the population, but not yet. The social ramifications and long term economic will be ignored by the elites as long as they make more money or in some cases get to help “humanity”.

          It’s our children and their children being screwed, not us, the government/big business gets tax/left wing voting and profit, while we can still simply just “white flight” to the suburbs.

          • gcochran9 says:

            Anyone that absorbs more government aid than they pay in taxes, over their lifetime, is a burden.

            The idea that such people only become a problem when they make up more than 50% of the population is ridiculous.

            • Anon says:

              You really think they do it because of the kindness of their hearts?

              People like Ann Coulter also claim even Republicans and “conservative” elites like the Koch brothers want mass low IQ labour. The most troublesome groups are at most only 20-30% on welfare, most do work, as McDonalds cashiers, Walmart stockers, gas station clerks, farm hands, all the jobs elites need and natives don’t want to do.

              Looky here at these treasonous fools:

              http://openborders.info/

              Open Borders: The Case
              “The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP” — Bryan Caplan

              Clearly that isn’t evidence of anything, but there are people who do think it does benefit them economically. It isn’t only a humanitarian argument. Look at London. It’s a city of only the rich and poor with little inbetween middle-class unlike the suburbs or the smaller English cities, and it has the most GDP per capita in the UK. With the US, you’d think it’s GDP per capita would be somewhere 12% Jamaican numbers, 21% Mexico’s numbers, and 63% the UK’s numbers. It isn’t, it’s even higher. We won’t see a downside for the economy until they make up a majority of the population, meaning there’s less white businessmen and job creators. We will see a Brazil/South Africa economy when we see Brazilian/South African type demographics. Even then, white Brazilian elites are doing just fine and probably wouldn’t give two shits about something like southern Brazilian(the most white parts of the country) seperatism.

              At most you can say immigrants could be a burden to the government budget, but even I doubt that as it increases the rich tax base, and again, most of these people do pay tax. Since when do governments care about their people though? At the very least they have a giant bias to the rich/elite of a country, and the rich/elite don’t have to deal with the social problems that low IQ people bring. The only reason I care about these sorts of issues is because I actually grew up in a shitty immigrant neighbourhood before moving to a better one. If I grew up in a posh, white area I probably wouldn’t give two glances to race and IQ.

              Immigration is profitable.

    • marcustanthony says:

      Like all conspiracy theories, there is no evidence for this one. In other words, it is nonsense. The entire basis of almost all the posts on this web page is false: that IQ is some monolithic physical entity which sits inside a persosn’s skull. IQ is a number assigned to an individual on the basis of doing a pen and paper test. IQ scores have fluctuated dramatically for populations based on cultural and social effects. The first batch of Jews to the US registered below average, but were above average within a couple of generations. Do you honestly think the Chinese average IQ would have been high before 1949, when 92% of the population were peasants? Effective IQs have massively increased right across the world in recent decades. I assume you know what the Flynn Eeffect is? If you don’t, you shouldn’t be discussing human intelligence, because you don’t even have a basic understanding of the issues and debates. It was estimated by one researcher that a person with a 100 IQ today would score in the top 2% of the population if he travelled in a time machine and took the same test 100 years ago (there were effectively no IQ tests back then, just hypothetically speaking). Apparently at one point in the Middle Ages there was only one man in the British Isles who could read. What would the British IQ average have been then? For an insight, take a look at Luria’s iQ testing of Russian peasants in the early to mid twentieth century. They could not even perform the most simple abstract conceptualisation.

      Recently we have seen an avalanche of research about neural plasticity and also regarding epigenetic variation in biology. Anybody who thinks that the field of human intelligence can be founded on the naive presupposition that IQ can simply be reduced to genetic coding is gravely ignorant. We are not talking about eye colour here. Even human height has been shown to be notoriously evasive in predictability based on readings of genetic codes (as opposed to, say, just measuring the height of parents). If people want to discuss this topic, they should read the literature, including all major debates. Don’t just read blogs or simplistic g-theory takes, such as that of Arthur Jensen. At the very least, such research has been rendered highly problematic in light of more recent science. It should be critiqued, not blindly adhered purely to because the essential concept is extremely simple to understand. It is the simplistic nature of such “IQ” theories that should make us question them.

      The degree to which human intelligence reflects genetic inheritance remains highly contentious. Intelligence, like much genetic expression, is mediated by multiple cultural and environmental factors. The capacity of the individual to self-reflexively influence his own behaviour makes the subject even more incredibly complex. This is the most rational position to take in this subject matter. Arguing that populations need to be controlled and engineered based on averaging IQ scores from pen and paper tests is an irrational and dangerous position which cannot be supported by the current understandings in the field.

      • JayMan says:

        Do you have to actively reach up your ass to come up with this stuff, or does it just come out naturally?

        “Recently we have seen an avalanche of research about neural plasticity and also regarding epigenetic variation in biology.”

        I believe you were asked to provide one example of this happening in humans.

        • marcustanthony says:

          Not from my butt, dude, but from many years of research in the area, including a PHD directly related to the field. I see no evidence that you – and most others here – are aware of many of the key issues or debates in the field. You are simply arguing from a naive assumption that there is a simplistic correlation between genetics and intelligence. You haven’t addressed any of those evidence or debates, merely projected anger, which leads me to conclude you also have no knowledge of them.

          I could be wrong in this, of course. Maybe you know the literature. Perhaps you could simply address one of the key debates – such as the relevance of the Flynn effect – and state why you think it can be dismissed as being irrelevant to the IQ=genetics position.

          If you want further explication of these things, read the literature. But I warn you, it is vast. The evidence and the debates are in a highly problematic state. They have never been all that clear, is the simple truth. That is the state of both intelligence theory and psychology in general – where the replication crisis in experimentation has now extended even to basic methodological approaches such as fMRI scanning.

          Don’t get angry. Get informed.

          • Anon says:

            http://i1.wp.com/i.imgur.com/bSPBUk5.png?zoom=1.5&resize=547%2C308

            Woops.

            Also, I highly suggest you look up the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study.

          • Cliff says:

            Would you be willing to concede that population groups that lived in different parts of the world evolved certain traits that gave them an environmental advantage? Example A: It would be logical to propose that population groups such as Europeans that spent tens of thousands of years in Northern latitudes adapted genetic traits that conveyed certain advantages. Certainly some of those genetic traits would be mental in nature: the ability to plan far into the future, to invent, to cooperate altruistically in groups, to develop complex means of communication (verbal, writing, artistic), to work hard. Ice Age Europe surely did not reward lazy, uncreative, unresourceful, and uncooperative dolts. Only the smartest survived. Logically, there was significant evolutionary pressure on population groups in ancient Europe that enhanced their cognitive abilities over thousands of generations. Are you saying that all population groups worldwide are genetically equivalent, regardless of the tens of thousands of years of evolutionary pressures such groups were subject to?

          • marymunro says:

            I think Jayman knows the literature pretty well.

      • gcochran9 says:

        IQ tests haven’t always been around, and they took a little while – hot long – to be improved and become useful.

        Ashkenazi Jews have done better than average (better than any other population !) on such tests since the tests became effective. And in life its own self, everybody knew they were cleverer than average. Mark Twain noticed it. The Ivy League began devising methods around 1920 or so to keep them out – de-emphasizing academic admissions tests and looking for ‘well-rounded’ students. What has changed in this story? High rates of intermarriage, and a low birth rate – resulting in fewer college-age unmixed Ashkenazi Jews. Bad for mathematics and theoretical physics.

        What populations produced top-notch mathematicians and inventors in 1900 but do not do so today? None.

        What populations showed little sign of high intelligence in 1900 yet do so today? None: rank orders have not changed. Some populations that were in the middle of civil wars, or under an oppressive occupation [Korea], are doing better today at producing accomplished people. But the picture has not really changed. Everybody already knew that the Chinese were not dumb.

        What about all the African (or African-American) Einsteins that Neil Turok is searching for? He hasn’t found any. That’s because they don’t exist. Too bad, really.

        What happens in diasporas? The Chinese do well, everywhere they go, even if they arrive as paupers. The Japanese do well, even if they started out in Brazil as coffee pickers. Blacks do poorly, everywhere they go. There are black suburbs of Washington, full of government workers, that have higher incomes (and more educational credentials) than the white guys running the body shops in those towns. But their kids do better in school.

        What about racial admixture? Mixed groups score in-between their ancestral groups. There is a simple explanation.

        Neural plasticity.. we can learn things – but some people are better at learning than others. Other than hitting a kid on the head with a ball-peen hammer, or giving him iodized salt when iodine is scarce, we don’t know how to change that. In the public schools of Berkeley, California, run by people that were all expelled from the Communist party for left-deviationism, black kids do tremendously worse than the white kids. Why? Moreover, this happens in every school system. You did know that, right? People have tried many approaches to close the gap: none worked.

        Epigenetic inheritance? Horseshit. But if there were such a thing, people whose historical experiences were harsher and more unpleasant than those of Americans, or even black Americans, would presumably suffer cognitive disadvantages.

        Yet they don’t. Kids in Hiroshima and Nagasaki score at the Japanese average, far higher than black or Hispanic kids in the US. You want to explain how sitting in the back of the bus two or three generations back was actually worse than being nuked? You know how much shit the recent ancestors of those high-scoring kids in Shanghai experienced? Civil war, Japanese occupation, the Great Leap Forward famine – a history in which breaking the Yellow River dikes in a hopeless attempt to slow down the Japanese army, resulting in half a million deaths, barely gets mentioned.

        For that matter, think how traumatic my life has been – hearing from pinheads like you, over and over – yet my kids do pretty well. Better than the President’s. certainly.

        If we did have proven methods of making kids effectively smarter, presumably teachers in Atlanta would have used those methods, rather than fake grades, get caught, and be sentenced to prison. Probably they should have used the methods on themselves, first. We have no such methods.

        You probably talk to the people doing GWAS and GCAT studies of intelligence.. No?? because I do. Turns out that IQ is highly polygenic, more so than height. We now know some of the difference-making alleles. What know is consistent with the main source of human variance in intelligence being additive effects of many alleles of small effect. These alleles do not necessarily have the same frequencies in every population.

        Using the word “problematic” strongly suggests that you’re an utter twit. You could at least try to hide it.

        In short, you’re wrong. You’ve been soaking up other people’s lies and wishful thinking. The real story is not that complicated, it’s just that many people don’t like the answer.

        • SonOfRekab says:

          You should stop beating around the bush, and start telling people what you think to their face….

          🙂

        • Jim says:

          It amazes me that some people seem to think that there is a universal constant that is the average IQ of every ethnic group on the globe. What other natural pnenomena works like that?

        • Jim says:

          If stress-induced epigenetic damage really were a significant factor in human evolution it would imply that the likelihood that two different ethnic groups were equal in average IQ ( or average anything else) would be even less then without it since it would simply be another complicating factor differing between ethnic groups. The more complicated the evolutionary process is the less likely equalitarianism becomes. The more complicated human intelligence is the less likely it is that it would be distributed equally.

          Of course inherited stress-induced epigenetic damage even if it existed is still a genetic difference. I not sure why the anti-genetic crowd puts so much emphasis on it. It would imply that say people whose parents or grandparents survived the Holocaust or other disasters such as the Great Leap Forward should show all kinds of genetic damages. But they don’t.

          To me it is actually comforting to know that people are not doomed to suffer themselves
          genetically from the disasters which befell their ancestors.

        • Afshin says:

          I agree with you here but there are some noteworthy exceptions, black africans actually do better than whites in Britain but of course that’s mostly due to selected immigration with a high proportion of Igbos from the intellectual elite

          • gcochran9 says:

            I kind of doubt every one of those statements.

          • SonOfRekab says:

            First wave immigrants tend to be “better” then what ever follows.
            So in the UK you got your first batch of Pakistanis and Jamaicans, with high proportions of MDs and engineers, what ever followed next was very different.

            When I went to an american high school in the early 90s, the early years of the H1B visa, there was a handful of Pakistani kids in that school.
            Now if i was to shape my view of Pakistan based upon my impressions of those kids, i would be sure that Pakistan is a country that makes Switzerland look like Bangladesh.
            They were all fluent in 2 or 3 languages, dominated the chess and debate clubs and almost all the boys majored in Physics.
            But we know Pakistan is not like that……

            • Afshin says:

              Immigration tend to be selected, if you believe that those who emigrate to a specific country represent a perfect average of that country’s population you’re as much a twit as marcustanthony is. Sometimes it’s disproportionately the intellectual educated elite that emigrates. Like the case with iranians who fled Khomeini in the 80’s.

              • SonOfRekab says:

                Well, as you cross the line between selected immigration to mass uncontrolled immigration, then you would in fact expect to get exactly the same statistics as you do in the country of origin.

                Why do you think the UK suddenly has a national memorial day for honor killing victims, didn’t seem to have such issues in the 80s.

                if being poor sucks in country A, while being poor is pretty good in country B, and country B says “hey illiterates. come join us”, guess what, they will come.

                It’s true about the Iranians that fled to the US, i went to school with a few of them, smart people, they will never stand for mass immigration from Iran.

              • Afshin says:

                I never said anything else, and i have never defended mass immigration. But not all immigrant groups are the result of mass immigration, from some countries the immigration has been very selected, those immigrant groups often perform far better than the average national IQ from their home countries would suggest. Examples include indian, iranian, egyptian and nigerian americans for example. On the other hand mexican immigrants to the US are not a selected group, rather they have below average IQ than their home country even.

          • Anon says:

            “I agree with you here but there are some noteworthy exceptions, black africans actually do better than whites in Britain”

            Laughable. Source?

              • Anon says:

                I’ll give it to you there, that’s honestly quite the piece of information if true, especially for liberal arguments(and we can say it’s selected immigration/immigrants are going to be smarter than the people they left behind all we want, but most people will still take it as: “here’s a group of intelligent blacks, improve the standards of the rest and they will be like them”)

                Here’s the thing though, that doesn’t really add up with British PISA scores. We see huge gaps between natives and immigrants on British PISA scores, the chart is here in another comment, yet according to this, pretty much all non-white ethnic groups, including Bangladeshis(who are mostly known for causing trouble and shitty Bradford) do better than white Britons academically. The only ones who don’t are Afro-Carribeans, and Afro-Carribeans are actually the least likely to be 1st/2nd generation immigrants that are shown in the PISA by immigration status scores, they were one of the first waves, so they are likely counted among the natives, the numbers clearly don’t add up. There’s also the point that every town in England that has a large population/majority of non-Britons has a bad reputation and lags behind heavily in income.

                This is a more localized source, I’d rather trust the PISA numbers.

              • Josh says:

                Both Pakistanis and black carribeans do significantly worse than british whites and they are the two largest immigrant groups in Britain (correct me if I’m wrong?). Also some of the black african groups are really high performing since that chart show the average performance of several black african groups some of them performing far worse than british whites. Especially nigerian british are very successful in the education system.

                And yes, this doesn’t show Nigeria has a high average IQ. But that was my point all along, immigrant groups don’t necessarily represent the average IQ of their home countries, IQ has been genetically stratified in every population and sometimes it’s predominantly the high IQ part that emigrates. As I mentioned in the US there are several examples of high performing immigrant groups from countries with low average national IQs

              • Anon says:

                Not to mention, we actually do have British Indian/Bangladeshi IQ, and it doesn’t add up if you’re one to believe in IQ studies.

                “The median IQ of the studies of South Asians in
                Britain is 89 and the IQ of South Asian im-
                migrants in Australia given in the last row is the
                same. This is a little higher than the IQ of 84
                of indigenous South Asians, consistent with th
                e results showing that IQs improve with length
                of residence in Britain and Australia. ”

                https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.pdf

                (page 56 for the studies/sources)

              • Afshin says:

                I see no contradiction from the data you presented, pakistanis, carribean blacks and white non-british all perform significantly worse than british whites and together they probably constitute the majority of all immigrants. Keep in mind also that some black african groups do better than others, somalians have perform much worse and nigerians well above the black african average.

                This doesn’t mean that nigerian average IQ is high but the immigration from Nigeria to Britain has been very selected, most second generation nigerians are the children of parents who studied in british universities as exchange students and found well-paying jobs after their exams. Of course their IQ will be higher than that of the average nigerian, it’s really not a mystery.

                I agree liberals and blank slatists using this as proof that any african immigrant can succeed given the right opportunities but it isn’t exactly difficult to provide effective counter arguments. If racism is the reason black carribeans do so badly why doesn’t this racism seem to have an effect on black africans? Actually I’d say it’s pretty good proof that immigration from low IQ countries only work as long as it is selected.

                We have plenty of examples, just look at the mass-immigration from low IQ countries like turkish-germans, mexican-americans, pakistani-british etc. They all do badly at school and commit a lot of crimes, however when you look at examples of selected immigration from low IQ countries like the case of indian-americans, egyptian-americans, nigerian-americans etc etc you see that they don’t have higher crime rates than their native populations and perform at least as well in school (often much better).

                Selected immigration from low IQ countries is not the problem, mass immigration from low IQ countries is the problem. The evidence is clear and is right before our eyes. It’s an effective argument that racism isn’t what causes this.

              • Anon says:

                Afshin:

                There’s absolutely a large contradiction. The numbers don’t add up whatsoever. The non-British white numbers on your link aren’t low enough to bring down the PISA numbers they way they are for immigrants. Also, Pakistanis and Black Carribeans are not the majority of immigrants in the UK. The large element of Arabs seems to be missing from your source but it’d probably be around the Pakistani numbers, which aren’t that lower anyway. There are more Indians/Bangladeshis than Pakistanis and Afro-Caribbeans in the UK, and on your source their numbers are astronomically higher than white Brits. Also, again, Afro-Caribbeans are the most likely to be non-1st/2nd generation immigrants/to be counted as native out of all the immigrant groups.

                From the 2011 census(pretty sure this is a racial/ethnic American-style census and not just country of birth):

                Indians in England = 2.6%
                Pakistanis in England = 2.1%
                Bangladeshis in England = 0.8%
                Chinese in England = 0.7%
                Afro-Caribbean in England = 1.1%
                African in England = 1.8%

                5.9% beats out 3.2%. Non-British white is 4.6 and Irish(who also somehow do better than the natives) is 1%, but again, the gap between non-British white and British white(3.4%) isn’t nearly as big on your source as it is between British white and Indian(16.6%).

                Based on PISA, the average white Britons should be getting a good 15-20% more 5+ A-C GCSE marks than the average of Africans, Bangladeshis, Indians, Pakistanis, non-British whites. They don’t.

                What that link says is immigrants do better academically(and significantly better) than natives, while PISA contradicts clearly contradicts this, and hey, maybe this is a better source, but the contradiction is clearly there, and personally, I’ll go with PISA.

      • Anon says:

        The Flynn Effect has plenty of reasonable explanations.

        If you’re going to argue the average American/European had an IQ of 70 in the mid 1900s, the idea is just so preposterous it doesn’t deserve a mention. The accomplishment/living standards doesn’t match the IQ at all, and there is not a single nation today with an IQ of 70 that match the early 1900s America. Similarly, murder rates were even lower in the early 1900s in America/Britain than they are today. Yes, much less police then, no 911, but you had other countries with high recorded murder rates back then still like the Russian Empire. If IQs were really that different we would see a difference in both murder rate and while Europe/America wasn’t what it is today, it wasn’t on the IQ 70 Africa level.

        Like Greg already stated, we already now know plenty of genetic alleles that contribute to intelligence. Not all of it is mapped out yet, there’s still the possibility Africans could have different genes that contribute to intelligence(kind of like differing genes for light skin between Caucasoids and East Asians), but what we do know absolutely goes along with racial differences in intelligence.

        A PhD directly related to the field is all fine and dandy, but at this point it’s pretty much mainstream science that a significant portion of intelligence is inherited, as much as so much of the mainstream fought against it and continue to hide information and discourage research in the field.

        More on the Flynn Effect, one of the theories is faster maturation of kids today, hence kids getting higher scores on tests the same age kids took the older IQ tests. IQ tests were also a lot more bias before, and blacks actually do better on biased tests than culturally unbias tests. Based on the Flynn Effect the black-white IQ gap has even widened, which makes no sense given the much improved conditions. The Flynn Effect has little to do with g factor intelligence.

        “Rather than mental ability, substantial improvements in IQ are found only in the visual logic subtests.”

        Also, from Flynn himself, 3 sections of IQ tests have not increased substantially at all, from only 2-4 points from 1947-2001.

        Here’s your non-blog sources:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226

        http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2004.pdf

        “Do you honestly think the Chinese average IQ would have been high before 1949, when 92% of the population were peasants?”

        Yes, plenty of peasant and poor populations with high recorded IQs today. As for your point on US Jews, American Jews already had higher IQs than their other American counterparts by the 1920s. Some immigrant groups may have had lower IQs, regardless, that’s quite a short while for such a big turnaround. It’s you who needs to do more research.

        I don’t care about genetic engineering, I just want to be a little greedy and stop immigration, but judging on your use of silly buzz words like “dangerous” you probably think that’s morally akin to murder as well.

      • I’ve always instinctively known that IQ tests were moving targets and very open to interpretation — but your answer was quite provocative. Thank you for sharing.

  2. MawBTS says:

    having the world kick you in the crotch (Mongols)

    I was shocked to learn that Mongolia has the same average IQ as Iceland (according to Lynn, anyway). They’ve invented nothing since the horsehead fiddle.

    They do have a silicon valley, but unfortunately it’s a literal one.

    • JayMan says:

      Only one IQ test has come out of “Mongolia”, and it was actually done on “Mongolians” living in Inner Mongolia in China.

      So no, we really don’t know what the average IQ of Mongolia is.

    • Jim says:

      I thought the Mongols composite bows were considered exceptional in their time.

      • st says:

        They were exceptional. But you might want to know something about how mongolian composite bows came into being:First people to use “mongolian” technque in riding and shooting with composite bows were the patrians in the 1-st century BC. Romans were so impressed they put them on their stelaes, so it is sealed in stone – first people we know of using mongolian composite bows and shooting techniques we the parthians, obsure iranic tribe, living a nomadic life on the fringes of Persia, 12 centuries before the mongols emerge on the historic scene. Perhaps shortly after implementing “mongolian” composite bow they became rules of Persia and changed its name to Parthia – which is how romans knew them. Shortly after they felt in obsqurity again, perhaps melting in the iranian society, as Parthia became Persia again; but some of their technological inovations might have outlived their demise and could have been adopted by the neibhoring turanic tribes.
        On another side, mongolians are well known for re-inventing the wheel. A mongolian village guy in 1923 reinvended the bicycle, not knowing it has already been invented few centuries ago and proudly arrived in Ulan Bator on a wooden bicycle, made – and invented – by him, in order to patent it and eventually get rich. His dissapointment was huge, so he went back home heartbroken. But he should not have been – his existence proved that mongolians are the only living people on earth we know of, that are mentally capable to invent the wheel. Which speaks good of their IQ, I suppose.

        • The Z Blog says:

          The Parthians did not invent the composite bow and they did not invent the mounted archer. It is generally assumed that these originated on the Eurasian steppe. It is from this region we got the Hunnic bow and the Qum-Darya bow too.

          The Parthians may have invented, but probably not, a specific tactic for using mounted archers. It is where we get the expression “parting shot”, by the way. The mounted archers would fire as they were galloping away from their enemy. It allowed them to work in waves that would attack and retreat while continuing to shoot at the opponent.

          The Mongols were the first anyone knows of to use a specialized bow for mounted archers. The bow was not symmetrical so the bottom was smaller, making it possible for the archer to have a full range of motion while firing. The Mongols big idea was how they deployed their mounted archers. Instead of assault and retreat or glancing charges, they operated in small units as part of a larger unit. A Mongol attack was like a swarm of bees.

    • akarlin says:

      The Mongols a very small population (about two orders of magnitude less than China both today and historically), had very low literacy rates due to being a nomadic culture, and spent the 20th century under Communism. So I don’t see how this is at all surprising.

      Population, literacy, institutions, IQ. Four vital ingredients. They had very little of the first three.

      • JayMan says:

        Which is why Finland is just as poor as Mongolia.

        • akarlin says:

          Finland had a high literacy rate even by the late nineteenth century due to its Protestant culture. This allowed it to achieve its demographic transition early and to develop rapidly after WW2 by dint of its high human capital, exposure to the advanced capitalist economies, and the not inconsiderable benefits of being an entrepot for Soviet-Western trade.

      • Bla says:

        Don’t forget geography. Just because Diamond said some silly things about Papua New Guineans, doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the factors.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Very true. England was close enough to the Continent to fully participate in positive developments, but that small stretch of water meant they have not been invaded (by land) since 1066. A good combination. Japan is also an offshore island. Coincidence?

          But that obviously doesn’t mean every offshore island will do well.

          Diamond made a number of good points, especially about the why the Americas were behind the Old World. Those might not have been the only reasons, of course.

          • Bla says:

            While we are at England, the fact their coal deposits and iron ore were near to both one another and to navigable waterways, meaning they could be transported where needed by boat, made the obtaining and distribution of recurses necessary for industrialization much cheaper. Coal i Scottish ports in 18th century went for around 1 pound per ton. Due to the higher transport cost, when it reached highlands its price was 50 to 100% higher, used only by rich for heating their homes.
            England was actually invaded since 1066 from the continent (by Louis VIII of France 1216-17, by Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer in 1326, and finally by the Dutch in 1688). But yes, that small stretch of water protected them more often than not (and in all of mentioned invasions invaders had at least temporal allies in England, or were invited to invade, as in 1688) .

  3. st says:

    “..assume that there are a lot of other important environmental variable, but I sure don’t know what they are” – order of birth might be one of them, although the claim have been disputed lately. But it is a low hanging fruit – just check the list of nobel prize winners in physics and what’s left from it if you remove the names of all first-borns from the list. Anyway, no one seems to be willing to pick it, since it goes against the grain, implying that the effect of abortions on national IQs might be a magnitude bigger than one would normally thinks judging by the effect on demography only(if there is anyone at all thinking about it of course, which is not true.)
    Assuming that researchers claiming the birth order matters are right, we might want to ask ourselves if X has made 2 abortions before giving birth to her firstborn, would her firstborn be firstborn or third born in terms of bird order effect on IQ and is there correlation between the slightly dysgenic trends experienced by the PC driven societies of west and the abortions becoming part of the social norm during twentieth century.

    • JayMan says:

      Birth order has no effect on IQ.

    • dearieme says:

      “order of birth might be one of them”: I remember reading that all order-of-birth effects vanish if you classify only children as ‘last born’ rather than ‘first born’.

      • Paul says:

        Many classification shifts of that severity would destroy statistical effects. Maternal immune responses to first vs later pregnancies are likely consequential. Only children are, indeed, firstborns. Birth order effects are slight, but not insignificant or uninteresting. Doesn’t make evolutionary sense for them not to be.

  4. Frau Katze says:

    It turns out that Iran is only about half Iranian. There are many other ethnicities. Azeris are one (but are more or less treated the same. They’re Shiites.) Several Ayatollahs are Azeri or part Azeri.

    Lower down are the Sunnis: Kurds, Balochis, Turkmen, even some Arabs. Most of the Jews have left. There are also a number of Armenians.

    The general atmosphere of the country (ruled by Shiite clerics) doesn’t provide much encouragement for any kind of worldly success.

    The few accounts I’ve read on education with an Islamic bent are appalling. Memorizing the Koran in Arabic is considered extremely desirable.

    Apparently the Sunnis are particularly bad as they believe there cannot be any new interpretations. Shiism is somewhat freer, in that new interpretations are possible (most Islamic splinter sects spun off Shiism).

    I’d put the reign of clerics as bad as Communism. But unlike Communism, Islam isn’t going to disappear.

    • Jim says:

      Roughly half speak some dialect of Farsi. The next biggest group are Kurds whose dialects belong to the Iranian (Persian) branch of Indo-Iranian. Then Azeri’s who speak a Turkic language are next and then a variety of others speaking Turkic and a few Caucasian languages and Armenians whose language is Indo-European. Also some speakers of Arab languages.

      Euler is said to have memorized the entire Aeneid in Latin.

    • Afshin says:

      Azeris constitute about 20% of the population and they are likely the most intelligent ethnicity in Iran, they are known for their skills in trade and are very successful in both business and academia.

      Otherwise I agree that India and Iran likely are the two most genetically stratified countries in the world when it comes to IQ. That’s because while Iran lacks the caste system India has it’s still a very class conscious society where assortative mating remains and has remained sky high for several centuries. India and Iran have a lot in common culturally as both are ancient indo-aryan cultures which likely is the cause of this stratification in IQ.

      This explains why India and Iran despite lower average IQ still can produce famous mathematicians, chess players and scientists

      • Afshin says:

        Interesting to note is that before the islamic invasion Iran had a caste system similar to that of India, this has lived on in practice although formally abolished. There are very few other countries where marrying someone of a lower class is as taboo as it is in Iran and this has been going on for centuries, even today iranian parents prefer their children to remain unmarried rather than marry someone of a lower socio-economic background. This is what I believe has led to the high genetic stratification in Iran and India.

        It becomes very obvious just by visiting Iran. The upper classes living in Northern Tehran are more articulated, better educated, sophisticated and secular (although still socially conservative) than the upper classes in any other muslim country. However once you visit the poorer parts of Tehran or the countryside you understand why people like Ahmadinejad could get elected president twice. They tend to be very religious, narrow-minded and clannish. The cultural gap between these parts of the population is huge and has made any intermarrying between them even more unlikely.

        • Frau Katze says:

          Where do you think the caste system from? The IE speakers that went to Europe apparently didn’t have the concept. Maybe the others picked it up from some pre-existing civilization in that part of the world? I confess that I haven’t read much about it.

          I’m also curious about the Kurds. They seem kind of invisible in the upper classes of Iran (I’m going by about a dozen memoirs—at least—written by Iranians who left. I do notice that Iranians write a lot. It’s harder to find the that many memoirs from the Arabs. Which is a shame as such writing helps us Westerners understand that part of the world),

          Is it because they’re Sunnis and treated as second class? I read somewhere that the languages split in the 11th century or so. Or they just stupider? They seemed to be holed up in the mountainous areas.

          • Afshin says:

            Kurds don’t have very good reputation in Iran and are less common among the upper classes. The educated classes in Iran consists mainly of persians and azeris, I’d say that among the high-earning and well-educated classes azeris are overrepresentated compared to persians even. They are especially successful in trade and business which is typical for high IQ populations. Also for a persian to marry someone of an azeri background is not at all controversial in the same way it would be marrying an iranian kurd. Azeris are somewhat envied but very well respected.

            I have no idea where this caste system came from but it lives on in spirit in Iran even though formally abolished with the advent of islam. Marrying someone from a lower socio-economic class is a big no-no, you will basically be ostracized from your family (I personally know an iranian woman whose parents and family broke off all contact with her after marrying a man from a lower socio-economic background) it’s far more taboo in Iran and India than in any other country I have ever visited. Not surprising this leads to the kind of high genetic stratification in IQ that we can see in Iran and India, the only third world countries who can produce award winning mathematicians and chess world champions

          • rkr says:

            Didn’t have the concept?
            They probably were able to restrict the breeding of Farmer/Hunter males in (Northern)Europe to the point where the indigenous slave caste was extinct within generations leaving only the immigrant dominant caste alive. There was that one single guy with haplogroup I1 whose lineage managed to breed quite well though.
            Ancient Greece seems to have had more parallels to India.

            • Frau Katze says:

              I don’t know enough to evaluate your answer. You are talking complete population replacement. Does the small number samples capable of yielding DNA that can be analyzed really show that?

              The pre-existing people living in India pre IE invasion are still there (certainly the ones speaking Dravidian languages). I was surprised that Indians refer to these tribes as “indigenous.” I’m speaking of tribes living in areas where the IE speakers have taken chargr completely.

              • rkr says:

                I’m talking about complete ethnolinguistic replacement with an indigenous(wrong word to be honest, I should have used native instead) contribution from females which is precisely what happened in Northern Europe and to a more moderate extent in Southern Europe.
                My theory being that the climate of the northern half of Europe wasn’t suitable for keeping around a bunch of people that the invaders weren’t fond of at all unless they had wombs while in Southern Europe and India there was much more to gain from their services.

            • Flinders Petrie says:

              “There was that one single guy with haplogroup I1 whose lineage managed to breed quite well though.”

              Don’t forget us I2’s…we survived too.

          • gcochran9 says:

            The IEs seem to have had some kind of three-way division of society: priests, warriors, and ordinary farmers/herdsmen. There is some reason to believe that they began with just the priests/magicians and warriors, who then conquered the farmers.

      • CM says:

        Azeris are under represented in Iranian universities, so where did you get the idea they’re the most intelligent? Iranian Azerbaijan is also poor relative to Persian-speaking areas. Azeris are mocked in Iran for being unintelligent in fact.

        If I had to guess, I’d say people from Gilan/Rasht are the most intelligent ethnicity or community in Iran.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “something like being Henry Molaison, who had his amygdala removed by a playful neurosurgeon and afterwards could not create new explicit memories.”

    You mean his hippocampus, bro.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think that map is as accurate as it could be. Look how blue Sicily is.

    • Anon says:

      The map is outdated, based on when Lynn/Vanhanen used northern Italy’s numbers to represent the entirety of Italy.

      This is the most updated version as far as Europe goes, by the same authors. Sicily is 90 and northern Italy is 101.

      Overall it seems pretty accurate when compared to how the countries are, but Ireland/Lithuania are absolute anomalies. I can see the southern and even eastern European countries because of significant genetic differences/ancestry, but for Ireland, you really can’t put it on either ancestry or recent history, as Ireland is a pretty well off country without the typical oil-rich scenario, etc.

      • MawBTS says:

        There have been multiple surveys that found Ireland’s IQ to be in the mid 80s (??!).

        Anomalous, as you said.

        • Anon says:

          JayMan, I always wanted to ask you, when you or whoever adjusted the IQ data for PISA studies, is it done with only native scores or just overall PISA scores?

          I’m sure you know this already but scores look a lot different when you only count the natives:

          You only really need to look at the 2000-2003 scores compared to now(the Finns/Dutch even did better than Hong Kong in 2000) to tell you immigrants are significantly lowering PISA scores over time and using the broad PISA scores isn’t going to be accurate. Poland now beats out Sweden in PISA and somehow I doubt that’s because they finally got past their Communist recent history. I also wonder how many non-natives are included in the actual IQ studies, but most IQ studies are pretty old so I wouldn’t think it’s that much.

          • Karl Zimmerman says:

            It’s interesting the gap between native-born and immigrant performance is so much smaller in Anglosphere countries than it is in continental Europe. The demographics of migrants in all of these countries are quite different, so I’m not sure the “HBD” line works here.

            • Anon says:

              Not that surprising. I’m Canadian, we have a lot of Chinese here. The Aussies and New Zealanders have even more.

              • Frau Katze says:

                This how ideological the Swedes are: BC has lots of Chinese, and any list of top scores in province wide exams will include Chinese, some of whom may not been born here.

                In Sweden, the Arabs and Somalis and who ever else they’ve got are underachievers. The Swedish govt paid for a team to travel to BC to figure out the magic formula. The obvious conclusion was ignored, or not even thought of, that’s how brainwashed they.

              • Karl Zimmerman says:

                I thought that might explain Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. it doesn’t explain the UK (where there is a big first generation gap, but not a big second generation gap) or the U.S. (where gaps overall are rather small).

              • gcochran9 says:

                (where gaps overall are rather small)
                ?

              • Karl Zimmerman says:

                Looks like this thread has gotten too deep, replying to Greg…

                Looking at PISA scores, the gap between native-born and immigrant test-takers in the U.S. is indeed way smaller than somewhere like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, etc. Presuming that the PISA test-takers are truly picked in a random manner, it seems then that immigrant children in the U.S. really do perform better than Western Europe.

              • gcochran9 says:

                The US mix before recent immigration was different, and we’re talking different immigrant streams as well.

              • Karl Zimmerman says:

                The numbers were from 2009. If anything, 2009 numbers should be a bit lower than present, because since that time our immigration stream has shifted away from Latin America and toward Asia.

                Regardless, the plurality, and perhaps majority, of first or second-generation immigrant 15-year olds (which is what this PISA study was looking at) in the U.S. in the U.S. in 2009 would have been Latino. Latin American IQs vary depending upon nation, but they aren’t too different from the MENA nations which have been the big drivers of European migration. Yet immigrants in the U.S. seem to perform much better on PISA than European immigrants.

            • JayMan says:

              The Atlantic is wider than the Mediterranean. This selects for better immigrants to the U.S., at least those coming from the Old World.

              Broadly speaking, the bigger the barrier, the better the immigrant. In the case of the French Canadians who came to America, who essentially skipped across the border, the U.S. got (and retained) a subset of immigrants whom were less talented than their source population back in Canada.

      • SE Europe, especially Romania, has significant Roma populations. I’m betting you get different numbers on either side of the Carpathians as well in both Romania and Ukraine.

        I remain curious what the coastal vs interior numbers in China are going to show as we get more data.

      • Jim says:

        Lynn norms the British population to 100. He gives the average IQ of the US as 98.

      • HBDfan says:

        Except for the oddities in Ireland and Lithuania, there are inaccuracies in the Balkan part of the map. Romania is certainly not 4 points lower than Ukraine. Also, there is no way that Serbia is 4 points below Bulgaria, 5 below Bosnia Herzegovina with its share of Muslims and a whopping 10 below Croatia. They used to be one country very recently and they share the same language.

        • probably says:

          I agree. I doubt Serbian and Bulgarian results differ that much, going by their performance on PISA, for example. Croatia does perform very well compared to Serbia though. This isn’t purely an ethnic difference (i.e. ethnic Serb vs ethnic Croat) but part of it is certainly is. Slovenia similarly outperforms Croatia, to a much larger degree than Croatia outperforms Greece (which outperforms the rest of the Balkans). So those estimates don’t seem all that accurate to me as far as relative differences are concerned.

          Rindermann’s (or Rindermann and Thompson’s more recently) estimates are probably more accurate, since they take into account all those further assessments.

          Lynn does have some estimates “adjusted by student performance” but when your data collection and representation (he frequently even gets numbers plainly wrong, e.g. in the past he kept giving Bosnia’s estimate as 84 instead of 94 due to a typo or had gotten the scores of various countries in some studies wrong and keeps using those) is kinda iffy in the first place, you’ll have plenty of small errors all over, even if the overall picture is correct.

        • Anon says:

          Why is there no way Romania is not 4 points lower than Ukraine if you’re a “70% of intelligence is inherited” person?

          Romanians are much more shifted towards MENA/Caucasus people than Ukrainians are. To be clear, I’m not saying this is why they have a lower IQ, but you’re acting like they’re the exact same people or something. There is an ancestry/genetic explanation if you believe those kinds of things will affect intelligence. Same with Serbians and Croatians. Whether they shared a same country recently isn’t too relevant, and Croatia/Serbia have been split up more than they’ve been together anyway. Slavic migrations were also more significant in Croatia than Serbia and Croatia had been a part of Austria for a long time.

          Croatians are actually genetically closer to Hungarians/Austrians than they are to Serbians.

          Now, Irish people are almost exactly like English/Scottish people(mind you, this does not account for recent genetic selection or anything), Lithuanians are extremely close genetically to their neighbours, that’s why I called their IQs anomolies. There is no immediate ancestral explanation. The examples you brought up don’t fall into that category.

          Here’s one of the more accurate population genetic plots out there, most others also confirm the same thing:

          Oddly enough IQ has a correlation with more northern/western shifted populations on this plot. Would be interested to know Sardinian IQ(whom are supposedly the people closest to the neolithic farmers of Europe/Anatolia).

          • Greying Wanderer says:

            Romania has a lot of iodine deficiency. People think it’s just Africa but a lot of regions elsewhere have it – especially mountainous regions (due to rainwater runoff) or dry interior regions with less rainfall further from the sea.

            http://www.unicef.org/romania/Strat_IOD_eng.pdf

            “Based on studies conducted by WHO, the “C.I. Parhon” Institute of Endocrinology, as well as
            studies conducted by the Institute for Mother and Child Care from Bucharest, one can state that:
            • iodine deficiency is widely spread in Romania, much beyond the border of areas
            considered as endemic, practically the entire population of the country is at risk;
            • approximately 20% of the children are iodine deficient, with a higher prevalence of
            iodine deficiency disorders in the rural areas;
            • over 35% of the population exhibit visible signs of thyroid condition (goiter). “

          • Romanian says:

            Can I ask you to elaborate on the shift to MENA and Caucasus? Despite being under Ottoman suzerainty, Romania had no mosques above the Danube as part of its cultural autonomy, which meant very little probable Turkish admixture. It was a gene exporter through contributions to janissaries and harems, rather than a gene importer. The most significant non-European contributions (aside from the SE Asian Roma migrants) could, in theory, be from the Tatars, but Ukrainians would have a lot more of that than Romania. Just look at Crimea’s history.

            I think iodine deficiency and the effect of subpopulations like the burgeoning Roma and explains it. Also, our historical German population has mostly left.

            • Anon says:

              It’s simply what the genetics show. Not all Europeans are equally far away from their Middle-Eastern counterparts genetically, that’d be non-sense, especially given some are much closer geographically.

              I don’t have an answer for the specific migration wave that brought it, all I know it isn’t extra neolithic farmer admixture(and even if it were, that’d still shift them towards MENA populations, just less so), which is the main differences between Spaniards/North Italians/French/Austrians/South Germans. NW Europeans have more Indo-European/Hunter Gatherer, SW Europeans have more Anatolian/Balkan farmer admixture(which were closest to modern Sardinians, not any MENA population), the French and south Germans would be a medium.

              Keep in mind, this can be stuff that happened thousands of years ago, not only recent history like Ottoman admixture. It could’ve been a later farmer migration which were closer to other farmers like Levantine farmers or Caucasus people, but it definitely wasn’t from the people that we thought of as “neolithic farmers”. Also, neolithic farmers were almost exclusively G2a, I2 and one clade of E1b, the J1/J2/E1b haplogroups in Europe had to come from somewhere.

              Also, Religion won’t be much of an indicator of migration, Bosnia is Muslim and yet has less shift towards the Middle-East than Serbia.

              Here are two more PCA plots, and raw calculator data/numbers show the same thing, there’s a reason why Romanians are closer to Turks than say the British:

              Again, I’m not saying this is why they have a lower IQ(although this is my personal opinion), just pointing out there are significant ancestral/genetic differences.

              • Romanian says:

                Thank you for your detailed reply!

              • Albert says:

                2000 years ago, the MENA-shifted people were civilized and the Hunter Gatherer-shifted people were still barbarians. Even today, if you believe Lynn, MENA-shifted Northern Italians have a higher IQ than HG-shifted Lithuanians or Finns. Not to say anything about Ashkenazi Jewish IQ.

                Also, keep in mind that “student assessment studies” are not IQ tests. It’s likely that actual national IQs throughout Europe are all within a few points of each other, with none lower than ~98. That’s what this 1981 study found.

              • JayMan says:

                Why do people have a hard time accepting that not all Europeans are created equal – especially when everything we see says they’re not?

              • Anon says:

                Albert:

                “Barbarian” doesn’t mean low IQ. When you look at a city like Qatar you don’t think of barbarians yet their IQ is 83. The Mongolians and Vietnamese are much less accomplished yet their IQ doesn’t add up. The Japanese and Manchurians were much less accomplished than the Chinese, the Manchurians themselves being considered barbarians, and they too have higher IQs than their historic civilized Chinese counterparts outside of Shanghi. What the barbarians did does not equate to having a much lower IQ, not once were they dominated so much as African tribals were during colonization or Amerindians by the Conquistadors. Also, for “barbarianism”, I’d love to see murder rates of iron age Germanic villages compared to inner city Pompeii, please. Anything else is speculation. The average person living in an ancient civilization was a “barbarian”, only the elites of these civilizations could have been considered intelligent or civilized. Funny how these ancient civilizations only formed(or atleast reached their peak, as Minoans/Vinca were a non-IE civilization) after Indo-European conquest, and all these northern shifted Indo-European cultures like Bell Beakers, Unetice, etc were arguably more accomplished than their farmer counterparts, not to mention the former completely dominated the latter militarily.

                The Ashkenazi Jew comparison is not a valid one at all, they’re a population of 14 million world wide, mostly resulting from a population boom in the 1800s, and their IQ is most likely the result of 1000(if not more) years of “primitive eugenics” of thriving as upper class professions in Medieval, Reinassance European urban centers.

                On a final point, Northern Italian IQ actually over performs northern Italy’s economy(and PISA scores), which is heavily overrated. It peaks in South Tyrol at 39k USD per capita, with other northern regions at around 35k, and that isn’t including Italy’s high government debt. Actually, if you count government debt(some of the highest in the world) and government spending, northern Spain winds up richer than northern Italy. Italian murder rates were also oddly high in the 1800s/early 1900s, literacy was about 40% in northern Italy in the early 1800s while it was 80% in the German states, and I can’t think of any historic reasons for this, Italy was one of the least affected countries by wars/etc.

              • Albert says:

                Indo-Europeans were basically half HG and half MENA. You’re crediting their HG half with their accomplishments, but history shows MENA people to be much more accomplished (farming, metallurgy, world’s first civilizations), and the IEs copied a lot from MENA-shifted non-IEs like Minoans and Etruscans. HGs were barbarians in the way that Africans and Amerindians were, not in your revisionist and romanticized way. Indeed, the Eastern HGs that went into the IE mix were literally related to Amerindians.

                I don’t know why you’re going off-topic about Northern Italy’s economy (I was talking about their high IQ vs. their MENA-shift), but per capita income is not the whole economy. Italy’s industry is centered in the Northwest, not South Tyrol.

              • Anon says:

                Albert:

                Your complete and total lack of population genetics knowledge is showing, you see one chart that shows Yamnaya at 50% “CHG” and assume they’re half MENA. Firstly, I wasn’t talking about Yamnaya, I was talking about later Indo-Europeans who were actually near the farmers of western Europe and conquered them. Yamnaya is just one of many IE groups, found around Samara and north of the Caucasus. Secondly, Yamnaya is actually only around 30% CHG(and are closest to modern Tatars), and if you knew anything about ancient genetics you’d know CHG itself was already admixed with EHGs. The same method that puts Yamnaya at around 50% CHG(qpAdm) puts modern Norwegians at 29% CHG. Not an accurate indicator of anything. The groups I was talking about like Unetice, Bell Beaker, Urnfield were closest to northern Europeans(British Isles specifically for Bell Beakers, Scandinavia for Unetice/Urnfield). These were the groups that conquered the farmers which later almost immediately led to higher civilizations like Rome or the Mycenaeans. Archeology supports this.

                lol at “Indo-Europeans got everything from older civilizations”. Bronze age Indo-Europeans invented the widely used Bronze Age sword, where the typical Gladius design comes from. All of these were found in Unetice culture before any southern cultures.

                Unetice infrastructure(their wooden fortifications and houses) were much more advanced than the native farmer Remedello infrastructure in Italy, and of course, IEs dominated the farmers everywhere they went. As for iron age Germanics being comparable to Amerindians or African tribals, I doubt even mainstream historians would agree with that.

                Other things northern European Indo-Europeans invented:

                The 2nd oldest sun dial in the world by the Srubna culture(first being ancient Egypt only 200 years earlier)
                The chariot by Sintashta culture
                Horse domestication by EHGs

                If you want evidence these people were closest to northern Europeans, just ask.

                As for your point on EHGs, it’s technically correct(the affinity to Amerindians), but that assumes those EHGs were the actual source of EHG admixture in IEs(ps, they weren’t), and we have like what, 2 samples? This type of ignorance reminds me of when people thought all 3 of Sardinians, Bedouins, and Georgians were all 80% descended from Anatolian farmers before key new ancient sample discoveries were made(like CHG) when non-direct population comparison calcs clearly showed otherwise(Georgians would only show up as ENF for example because it was still the closest thing to the undiscovered CHG). The EHG samples we have from Samara and Karelia were genetic dead ends and only close cousins of the EHGs who made up the ancestry of Indo-Europeans. The autosomal genetics don’t add up. Khvalynsk culture is more spot on, but even then, we still need more samples from Stredny Stog, Dnieper-Donets cultures, etc.

                There is absolutely no disaster/cultural/environmental/natural resource reasons(Germany didn’t colonize squat other than a few useless territories that were quickly lost in WW1, and the north/south gap started way before colonization anyway) for northern Europe to have surpassed the traditional areas of ancient European civilization, infact, they should indicate reversed roles, there’s absolutely no reason for a country like former communist/serf Estonia to be surpassing an area like Rome in IQ today, they likely had higher IQs all along.

              • Albert says:

                LOL You sound like an Afrocentrist naming a few random things Indo-Europeans “invented.” Meanwhile, historical scholarship shows that Roman civilization started with the Etruscans, who taught the Romans most of what they know despite later being conquered by them.

                http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/birth/4/FC27
                https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/etruscan/a/the-etruscans-an-introduction

                You also sound like Afrocentrists when they deny the MENA ancestry of Egyptians and Ethiopians. Every genetic study that’s come out in the last few years says the same thing: Yamnaya are the ancestors of Indo-Europeans and they were a mix of an Amerindian-related group and a MENA-related group. It doesn’t matter if it was actual EHGs or their close cousins, or if it was CHGs or ENFs or Chalcolithic Iranians (as one recent study suggests). And it doesn’t matter if it was 30% or 50% or 70% of one or the other. That ancestry plus farmer ancestry means your precious northern European Aryans are heavily mixed with MENAs, and you should be thankful for it otherwise they’d be a lot less accomplished and look a lot less Caucasian.

                The IQ in Rome is one of the highest in Europe according to the real IQ study I linked to before, which you ignored. There’s no data for Estonia, but related Finns are a few points lower than Rome.

                http://dienekes.awardspace.com/articles/greekiq/

              • Anon says:

                Albert:

                Roman civilization was started by a Latin tribe, who were an Italic people, whose language did not even originate in Italy and whose direct predecessors were also the ancestors to Germanic people, the Italics simply mixed with more farmers once they got to Italy. This is what historic archeology and genetics says. Etruscans starting Rome is a theory.

                The first IE peoples in Italy were the Proto-Villanovan people, who again, dominated all the native farmer populations there. Before this, there would’ve been absolutely no R1b(other than a V88 here and there) in Italy. Today, it’s the majority y-dna haplogroup of Italians.

                That’s how much of an influence your Etruscans had.

                Yamnaya is still irrelevant to all of this because again, it was one of the many IE cultures that was around 2000 years before any relevance to any IE migrations into Italy.

                “That ancestry plus farmer ancestry means your precious northern European Aryans are heavily mixed with MENAs”

                “Northern European Aryans” being heavily mixed with “MENAs” doesn’t matter if modern Northern Europeans are as well, if we’re doing a modern Northern European vs modern Southern European comparison. Sorry I had to repeat that again, the point seems to have flown past your head.

                “and you should be thankful for it otherwise they’d be a lot less accomplished and look a lot less Caucasian.”

                Unfortunately, the numbers don’t add up. MENAs themselves would have to be successful and intermediate populations like the Greeks/south Italians would have to be more successful than they are as well. As for the looking Caucasian, I’m sure you meant “Caucasoid”, given we know who most people think of as the most Americanized version of “Caucasian”, but nope, there are unadmixed HGs with light skin, and based on facial shape phenotype SNPs, a guy like Loshbour was closest to eastern Pollacks.

                “The IQ in Rome is one of the highest in Europe according to the real IQ study I linked to before”

                Ugh.

                Anyway, Afrocentrism? I’m pretty sure Afrocentrists love to cling to the past, use speculation rather than raw data, blame an external factor for their present situation, I think of you and and another specific group of people who also do this.

              • Albert says:

                I don’t see any evidence disputing the Etruscan origin of Roman civilization or the high IQ of modern Rome. Your opinions don’t count.

                You bring up R1b, but it was just found in a Mesolithic (14,000 ybp) sample from Villabruna, northern Italy, with a higher Near Eastern affinity; it peaks today in Spanish Basques and Celts; and along with R1a, it’s the most common haplogroup in Europe. No evidence that it has anything to do with IE Germanic people. LOL

                It’s good you’re finally admitting that Northern Europeans have lots of MENA ancestry. Now you just have to realize that civilization started in the Middle East with farmers and metal workers, not in Northern or Eastern Europe with hunter-gatherers, and that it was spread to Europe by those MENA groups, including Etruscans, Minoans and the MENA component of IEs.

                Genetic evidence shows that most HGs had dark skin and East Asian or Amerindian affinities, especially the ones from the north/east. 50% of a sample of Scandinavian HGs even had the EDAR gene that makes East Asians and Native Americans look mongoloid. They were not Caucasian. Light skin and Western facial features come from MENAs.

                That other group of people you’re thinking of that are like Afrocentrists are called Germanocentrists or Nordicists. They’re still stuck in the 1930s and think Hitler might make a comeback. You’re one of them.

              • gcochran9 says:

                R!b, the version common in western Europe, came in with the Europeans. It’s very recent.

                The Middle-Eastern-like ancestry in northern Europeans is mostly from a group extremely similar to ancient Georgians

      • Fritz says:

        99 for Germany? Pretty bad. Do the studies used include only ethnic germans or immigrants as well? I read that Volkmar Weiss even sets the mean IQ of Germany to about 97. This seems to suggest that given Germany’s great achievments in science, engineering, philosophy and literature, the IQ must have dropped. Dysgenics?

        • gcochran9 says:

          As far as I can tell, modern genetic analysis shows that everything Volkmar Weiss ever said was wrong, other than high heritability of IQ, which I knew already – you can observe a lot by just watching.

        • JoachimStrobel says:

          The first German Pisa studies speak the same 97-99 language. They improved slightly now. Opens the question, If earlier Pisa result, if they were available, would have been even lower.

      • Paul Conroy says:

        IRELAND:

        There is no anomaly about Ireland. Lynn worked in Northern Ireland and was a staunch unionist, who hated Irish people – so he faked his statistics for Ireland.

        He had a test on his website for years, that listed the Irish IQ based on 3 tests, one was of “Catholic school children”, and yielded an IQ of 78 – this is the one that significantly brought down the overall average. Years ago – 2007 I think – on Razib’s blog, I challenged Lynn on the source of this test and established two important points:

        The actual score was 87, not 78 – which Lynn acknowledged was a website and book “typo”. Two years later he had not removed this fake result from his website, nor do I believe he removed it from any later editions of his books
        The Catholic school children sample was sourced from a rural population in Northern Ireland, not in the the Republic of Ireland, so should have contributed to lower the UK’s average IQ NOT Ireland’s average IQ.

        Enough said…

      • https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
        Check page 10-11 showing regional results.

        Based on PISA results:
        North Italy is definetely much smarter than south Italy.
        South Germany is also smarter than North Germany from the data I have. So, mountainous Alpine region seems like a sweet spot.
        Shanghai seems to have an IQ average of 118.
        Western Turkey have IQ of about 97-98.
        Ireland has an IQ average of 100.
        North East Spain also highest in Spain.

    • Ziel says:

      I think Ireland is an interesting case as there seems to be some disconnect with the performance of the Irish diaspora (average) vs the country (below average) as well as the historical views of Irishmen (dim witted) vs current. Don’t think I buy blaming it on British oppression.

      • Karl Zimmerman says:

        I do wonder if the long-term existence of the Anglo-Irish had something to do with it? For hundreds of years the only way to socially advance if you were Irish (hold property, become a lawyer or a doctor, etc) you had to convert to Protestantism, which meant marrying into the Anglo-Irish social class. This class largely left Ireland during the Irish war of Independence of course, for obvious reasons, which would have drained Ireland of much of its more intelligent population.

        • Paul Conroy says:

          Karl,
          “This class largely left Ireland during the Irish war of Independence of course”

          No they didn’t.

          The major outpouring of Protestants – be they Anglo-Irish or Native Irish – from Ireland was in the 1700’s.

          At their high point, the Protestant community in what is Ireland today was 25%, today it’s about 4% and has been relatively stable.

      • Anonymous says:

        This is actually very interesting. Apparently scores in southern Italy are rising dramatically:

        http://italianthro.blogspot.com/2012/12/pisa-test-score-gap-closing.html

        This might be good news for the region’s economic prospects in the near future. Unless it’s just widespread fudging of data like Texas does for its NAEPs.

        • Anon says:

          PISA tests are not IQ tests. Far from it. They are knowledge tests. Yes, there is obviously a correlation, but that correlation will not be correct in every case, just like cranial capacity has a clear correlation with intelligence but Amerindians don’t follow suit despite having a large CC. I guess if people find the correlation that strong we can assume Irish and Lithuanian IQs are actually on par with other Europeans.

          Of course, some southern Italian region IQs were based on PISA, but Sicily’s wasn’t. It was found to have an IQ of 90, and the sample size was actually the largest of the Italian studies.

          Pace, F., & Sprini, G. (1998). A proposito della “fairness” del Culture Fair di
          Cattell. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 227, 77−85.

          Anyway, only Sicily was mentioned in the original post, and Sicily’s numbers remain low, only raising some 8 points from 2003-2009. Here are Sicily’s and Calabria’s 2009 PISA results:

          Calabria 449 442 443
          Sicily 451 450 451

          Pretty sure the non-Sicilian southern Italian region IQs are at 92-93 either way, not 90, so rapid rises to catch up with other nations around that IQ range like Greece/Bulgaria are to be expected.

          • Doug says:

            All of Lynn’s original “IQ” scores for Italy were based on PISA. Then after he got a lot of criticism for that, he tried to find some real IQ studies to back it up, but his (mis)use of those was criticized too.

            Lynn (2010b) uses data from several studies on Raven’s test (Pruneti, 1985; Pruneti, Fenu, Freschi, & Rota, 1996; Tesi & Young, 1962) and Cattell Culture Fair test (Buj, 1981; Pace & Sprini, 1998). None of the studies used the same age groups and none were aimed at comparing IQs across regions of Italy.

            Moreover, Lynn (2010b) did not consider the calculation of IQs made by the authors, but rather he recalculated the IQ scores in light of the well known and controversial (Colom, Lluis-Font & Andrés-Pueyo, 2005) Flynn effect (2007), described as a general increase of intelligence scores over the world in the last 50 years. So, for instance, an IQ of 99 collected in 1960, was increased by 4 points considering the Flynn effect = 4 of the Italian IQ in the years 1960-79.

            Such procedure is questionable, as also Hagan, Drogin, and Guilmette (2008) pointed out. Indeed, different studies demonstrated that the Flynn effect is concentrated in the lower half of the normal distribution or in undeveloped countries (Colom et al., 2005), whereas a possible stagnation of IQ scores in developed ones is currently under debate (Teasdale & Owen, 2005; 2008).

            http://italianthro.blogspot.com/2012/03/rebuttal-to-richard-lynns-reply.html

          • Pisa tests are probably very much correlated to IQ tests. I have seen some sample questions, and they are more like measuring your thinking ability rather than knowledge.

        • JayMan says:

          “Unless it’s just widespread fudging of data like Texas does for its NAEPs.”

          Now why would you suspect a thing like that in Southern Italy?

  7. Re: Garret Jones; it’s sad that modern scholars must write esoteric texts in order to protect their safety and career. This style of writing presents deliberately weak counterarguments to the author’s real view so that only the enlightened reader can decode it.

  8. Anon. says:

    bad choices (Communism), having the world kick you in the crotch (Mongols), or toxic intellectual fads can all make smart peoples unproductive.

    Can we really treat these as exogenous?

      • gcochran9 says:

        Give it a rest. When the Mongols came and killed everyone in Baghdad, of course it was exogenous.

      • Frau Katze says:

        Simple geography: mountain ranges and thick forests (and just plain distance) made it harder for any group to reach, say, the British Isles as opposed to Baghdad. Or Russia.

        • Jim says:

          And of course the Mongols were likely much more attracted to the wealth of places like China or Baghdad. To the extent they knew anything about Britain it probably didn’t seem a very lucrative target.

          • Frau Katze says:

            That’s also true. The Europeans set out sailing around the world in search of spices and silk. But to the, say, Chinese, there was nothing in Europe worth going to the trouble of sailing there. So the Europeans bumped into the Americas first. It’s all so fluky.

            • dearieme says:

              On the contrary, the Portuguese explorations of the Atlantic and the west coast of Africa were no flukes at all: they were one of the most fascinating planned episodes in history.

              • Jim says:

                Well obviously the discovery of the new world was accidental but Columbus’ voyage wasn’t random. He was looking for China. I believe I once read that the closest Columbus ever got to China was in his youth when he was held prisoner by the Turks for a while. The rest of his life he kept getting further away.

    • akarlin says:

      The only major region of the Russian Empire where the Bolsheviks won democratic elections in 1917 was in Latvia/southern Estonia, and the Latvian Riflemen were critical to maintaining the regime’s grip on power in the crucial early days. I do think Todd is correct in his theory that regions with communitarian family systems tend to gravitate towards Communism more than other regions, yet the fact that across the Russian Empire the Bolsheviks only got around 25% of the vote – this is less than what Communists traditionally got in their central Italian communitarian heartlands or in central France in the late 1940s and 1950s – suggests that considering them a fluke of history is not unwarranted.

      • Bob says:

        There was also that matter of the German Empire financing and supporting the Bolsheviks and transporting them back into Russia. At one point, all the prominent Bolshevik leaders had left Russia or been exiled. Once back in Russia, they overthrew the provisional government and got Russia out of the war, as the Germans had hoped.

        It’s entirely plausible that without the return of the Bolshevik leadership, the Bolsheviks would not have seized power and the Russian state, already mobilized for war, would have just killed off the remaining agitators or shipped them off to war.

  9. Thanks. Great post. There are some reasonable data on India, which is highly variable, as you say.
    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.fr/2015/03/the-heterogeneous-states-of-india.html
    Avoiding cousin marriage is certainly a very quick fix.
    Do current elites show any tendency to face reality? Not in The Economist, I am sorry to say.

  10. JayMan says:

    And of course, IQ is necessary, but not sufficient for scientific productivity. Other inherited traits are important for that – and for a host of other things:

    Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain

  11. Anonymous says:

    Implications of Flynn effect on international comparisons?

    • marcustanthony says:

      Don’t mention the Flynn Effect. It will really piss off most of the people here. They don’t seem to understand a lot of either intelligence thoery or genetics. Most of the views here are about forty years out of date. Add epigenetic variation and neural plasticity, and suddenly you have a web page full of tosh. Economic advancement and IQ are a precise correlation of genetic IQ? Goodness gracious me. So cultures, such as the Tibetans, Bhutan or many Islamic countries which value religion and introspection over cash are intrinsically stupid? And let’s not even start with querying the assumption that mathematical/linguistic acuity – basically abstract conceptualisation – represents the zenith of human intelligence. There are so many naive and unexamined presuppositions in these posts it is hard to even know where to begin.

      • Boris Bartlog says:

        Hey, maybe you could cite a single paper that shows epigenetic trait inheritance in humans. The ability of nurture-over-nature cultists to come up with endless variations on the same bullshit does not, in fact, result in them being able to disprove any of the well established findings on the overall heritability of human intelligence.

      • Jim says:

        Whatever value one places on mathematical/linguistic abilities it remains a fact that there are very substantial differences in such abilities between different populations throughout the world. It’s also a fact that large numbers of peoples living in cultures that value introspection and religion seem very desirous of emigrating from them to technologically advanced cultures.

  12. Karl Zimmerman says:

    I’ve never been able to understand why Ethiopia has such a low IQ – by some measures the second lowest in Africa. If you start with the prior that IQ differences are mostly due to genetic differences, Ethiopia has two things going for it: More West Eurasian admixture than anywhere else south of the Sahara, and thousands of years of literate civilization. Taken together, one would thus expect Ethiopia to have an intermediate level of IQ, higher than all of its neighbors. But instead it ranks near the bottom globally. I have to presume there are still some environmental factors at work here.

    • Insightful says:

      Karl, I’ve met Nigerians and I’ve met Ethiopians in college, and from my experience, Nigerians edge out Ethiopians on smarts.

      • Afshin says:

        Igbos edge out all other sub-saharan african populations on smarts by a clear margin in my experience. Most nigerian immigrants who are at college are igbos. Does anyone know the average igbo IQ? I don’t expect it to reach european or east asian levels but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t significantly higher than that of other black african populations

    • JayMan says:

      Not if average IQ levels we see today evolved recently, at least in some cases.

      • Karl Zimmerman says:

        The main difference ethnically speaking between Ethiopia and (higher IQ) Somalia is the extra West Eurasian influx from the Semitic Habesha. The actual time of this migration isn’t 100% known, but it likely was no earlier than 300 BC, and was possibly several centuries later. Thus it happened within less than 1,000 years of the Arab conquest of Northern Africa. Looking at the present day map alone, it appears that Arab admixture into Mauritania, and perhaps Sudan, did actually boost IQ. So what happened in Arabia between 300 BC and 600 AD which would have resulted in Arabian IQ rising substantively?

        • gcochran9 says:

          Check out the Oromo and Galla migrations in Ethiopia.

          • Karl Zimmerman says:

            I could see the Oromo/Galla migrations lowering Ethiopian IQ to closer to the regional averages. There is no way they could have lowered Ethiopian IQ below the regional average however, unless you are positing that Oromo were for some reason significantly stupider than Somalis.

            For that matter, there are a number of other places I could have highlighted in Africa – like why would Mozambique be lower IQ than Zambia, when they have largely the same Bantu ethnic background. I expect that within SSA variance in IQ from country to country (at least outside of hunter gatherers) is still mostly environmentally influenced.

            • Jim says:

              This is a huge area with many different peoples. It’s doesn’t seem surprising to me that there could be significant differences involving IQ across SSA.

            • gcochran9 says:

              In Mozambique, there is a significant genetic component absorbed from the previous hunter-gatherers, who don’t exist anymore as a distinct population. This might or might not make a difference.

    • Anon says:

      Keep in mind, the West Eurasian admixture recieved in the horn of Africa would’ve been most similar to Gulf Arabs(this is not an assumption btw, genetics confirm the Eurasian admixture in Africans is most similar to Natufians/modern Gulf Arabs), who are only at 80-83(Saudi Arabia at 80, Yemen/Qatar at 83, and just to be clear, gulf oil wealth goes back to the 1930s).

      Significant environmental factors are at work though, Ethiopia has had some of the most unsustainable population growth in all of Africa as well as some of the most famines, but let’s not pretend they’re half white/black mulattos or anything. The most admixed Ethiopians(the Tigray and Amhara) pretty much 55% Bantu and 45% Yemeni, so technically should be around 75 range, these two ethnic groups compromise only around 35% of the Ethiopian population. I’m sure other ethnic groups are also heavily admixed, but I know for example Ari people in Ethiopia are 87% SSA and Gumu people are 99% SSA.

      The history of Ethiopian civilization doesn’t mean much, such civilizations would only benefit the elites in terms of increasing IQ over generations, not the average farmer/herder/peasant, which most people there undoubtably were.

      Sudan has the highest SSA IQ atleast, if that means anything.

      • Karl Zimmerman says:

        Cousin marriage is certainly is depressing modern-day Arab IQs – probably by something like five points IIRC. And contemporary Arabs (particularly Yemenis) are not purely West Eurasian.

        Most Ethiopians who are not Habesha are members of Cushite ethnic groups (Oromo, Somali, Hadiyya, Sidama, Afar, etc). Cushites certainly have less West Eurasian ancestry than Habesha, but IIRC all of the sizable groups have somewhere between 20% and 30% such ancestry. There are of course some Nilo-Saharan groups in southern Ethiopia which have very minor admixture, but demographically speaking they are not a large component of the population.

        As an aside, I remember reading that if you just use the straight up West African and European averages, African-American IQ is too high by something on the order of 10 points. This means even if you take the position that nothing more can be done to close the IQ gap in the U.S., it’s probably not defensible to argue that nothing more can be done to close the IQ gap between SSA and Europe.

        • Irving says:

          I wasn’t going to make a post but then I came across this woefully uninformed comment: “The most admixed Ethiopians(the Tigray and Amhara) pretty much 55% Bantu and 45% Yemeni, so technically should be around 75 range”.

          In fact, the Tigray and Amhara are exactly zero percent Bantu. Not only that, the Eurasian admixture that they have, which actually just over 50 percent on average, is not Arab. It has ben shown by Pagani, actually, that the source population for that admixture was from the Levant, and they made their way to Ethiopia about 3,000 years ago.

          “Most Ethiopians who are not Habesha are members of Cushite ethnic groups (Oromo, Somali, Hadiyya, Sidama, Afar, etc). Cushites certainly have less West Eurasian ancestry than Habesha”

          Though this is true, it is also important to point out that the Oromo, which are the largest of these Cushitic ethnicities, have sizable Eurasian admixture, they are about 35 to 40 percent Eurasian. Moreover, many Oromo are intermarried with Amhara, especially in the Shewa region, and of these, many consider themselves Habesha.

          • Anon says:

            You’re wrong here. The geographical location of the source is irrelevant. You don’t know who inhabited the Levant 3,000 years ago.

            Based on genetic calculators, the closest match to the Eurasian admixture in Horners is absolutely Gulf Arabs. Even regarding ancient populations, the recent paper on the first farmers from the Middle-East clearly state the Natufians are the closest to the farmers who would’ve expanded into Ethiopia over any other farmer groups, and Natufians were undoubtably closest to Saudis, Yemenis, etc, not Palestinians/Syrians.

            Arguing over how Bantu Ethiopians are is like arguing about whether or not some Amerindian group is English or German admixed. I used the term Bantu as “typical SSA”, and I haven’t heard any other terms for native Africans other than Bantu, San and Pygmy.

            • Irving says:

              You’re wrong here. The geographical location of the source is irrelevant. You don’t know who inhabited the Levant 3,000 years ago.

              Based on genetic calculators, the closest match to the Eurasian admixture in Horners is absolutely Gulf Arabs.

              It should be enough to refer you to what Dr. Cochran himself wrote on this very blog back in October, when he wrote that the Amhara, and by extension the other Habesha ethnicities, “are ~50% white”. Someone responded to him by writing “And ~50% white here would really mean ~50% Yemeni” and Dr. Cochran specifically rejected that by responding “No, it does not mean like Yemen. It’s what I said”. You can read it all here: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/hot-enough-for-you/

              In any case, the evidence that Ethiopians are not half Gulf Arab is so abundant and widely accepted by everyone whose opinion actually matters on this subject that I refuse to even debate you on this here.

              Arguing over how Bantu Ethiopians are is like arguing about whether or not some Amerindian group is English or German admixed. I used the term Bantu as “typical SSA”, and I haven’t heard any other terms for native Africans other than Bantu, San and Pygmy.

              The distinction absolutely matters here as there are some huge differences between these SSA populations in a way that there isn’t between the English and Germans. To say that Ethiopians are half Bantu is to say that there are half Negro, and not only is this not true from the genetic point of view, but Ethiopians themselves specifically reject any common identity with negroes, and are actually quite racist towards them.

            • dearieme says:

              “I used the term Bantu as “typical SSA”, and I haven’t heard any other terms for native Africans other than Bantu, San and Pygmy.” The old word “negro” served well until suddenly the proposition was invented that it was offensive. Yet anyone who, like me, enjoys jazz of the 20s and 30s will often have read the word negro used in an emotionally neutral way by people who would never have written the rude igg word of the musicians they so admired.

        • Jim says:

          Lynn has estimated an average SSA IQ of about 80 under good environmental conditions. In the US Virgin Islands where there is free K-12 education, modern water systems, modern medical treatments, paved roads etc. the average IQ is I recall 78. Yes I think that it is likely that the very low reported IQ of say about 60 in Equatorial Guinea would probably substantially increase under improved conditions.

          • Anon says:

            Of course, I don’t think anyone rejects a significant amount of intelligence is environmental(most people put it around 70% inherited and 30% environmental). Most people will still take this as “throw money, free education, nutrition at them and Africa’s next generation will be like Europe”, though, which simply isn’t the case.

            The Minnesota Transracial Adoption study shows improvements in IQ based on conditions(for all races, including white), with there still being a gap of 20 IQ points between adopted white children and adopted black children(all the parents adopting themselves were tested, they were upper-middle class and also had average-high IQs), and a gap of 10-15(depending on which age, at age 7 the gap was 10, at 17 it was 15). Native American children did worse than the mixed black/white children but much better than the pure blacks, especially at age 17(the gap was also only 3 between mixed black/white and Native Americans).

            While a lot can be improved and I’m definitely not against helping improving the conditions of the third world, this shows there’s still clearly a cap, making us largely incompatible.

    • dux.ie says:

      “””minor symptoms such as breathlessness may occur at altitudes of 1,500 metres”””

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Climate
      “””Most of the country’s major cities are located at elevations of around 2,000–2,500 m (6,562–8,202 ft) above sea level”””

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ene.12507/abstract;jsessionid=6713A45D6FD9BD2DC1BF09903F1E976B.f04t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
      “””Psychological and cognitive impairment of long-term migrators to high altitudes and the relationship to physiological and biochemical changes”””

      • Jim says:

        The altitude figures sound similar to Northern New Mexico. When I visited that area I didn’t notice any breathlessness but I did have some minor nosebleeds.

    • Irving says:

      I’ve no doubt that Ethiopia’s IQ isn’t high, but I definitely cannot accept that it is as low as the Central African Republic’s.

    • jp says:

      I have a theory that is probably nonsense, but he goes. The Ethiopians have severe but irregular famines. Therefore any adaption which minimises energy requirements will be selected for among ordinary peasants. The brain is a massive energy hog so reducing its requirements would be an evolutionary advantage, providing you could still perform the tasks necessary to survive.

      However I believe they also have/had a caste system and many ethnicities/ sub-nationalities so in truth are not a homogeneous people, which might make average IQ number a bit meaningless.

      • dux.ie says:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8014215

        “””Positron emission tomographic measurements of [18F]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) uptake rates, quantified in 26 regions of the brain, indicated systematically lower region-by-region glucose metabolic rates in Quechuas (native highlanders) than in lowlanders. The metabolic reductions were least pronounced in primitive brain structures (e.g., cerebellum) and most pronounced in regions classically associated with higher cortical functions (e.g., frontal cortex).”””

        • dux.ie says:

          “””(For generational highlanders) brain metabolic rates modestly decline further after a period of 3 weeks at low altitude, reaching a new set point of metabolism that is even more strikingly different from that of normoxic lowlanders. “””

  13. JayMan says:

    How the talking classes who even accept the pattern explain it away is through reverse causation: they think wealth causes IQ, rather than the other way around. So of course all we have to do is make poor countries richer and their IQs will rise. Of course, they pay no attention to the results from wealthy Arab oil states…

    • A friend was at Cornell when Chinese students first started arriving in significant number. Of course China was incredibly poor at the time. But he found the Chinese students to be extremely smart. China doesn’t fit the environmental narrative for IQ. Neither do rich oil nations.

    • The Z Blog says:

      Belief is powerful magic. If you are fulling invested in egalitarianism, it’s not difficult to fit the facts to the belief and dismiss dis-confirmation as immoral. In fact, contrary evidence is probably necessary for maintaining the belief. It’s what binds the believers.

  14. dearieme says:

    The striking cases, to my eyes, are the sources of the non-oriental civilisations: the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Amerindian lands. What the devil happened, and why did it happen to all of them? Add Greece too, if you like. I repeat: why did it happen to all of them?

    • HL says:

      Islam in Africa/ME/India?
      More native blood in SA?

    • syonredux says:

      The decline of Greece just mystifies and terrifies me. What happened to the nation that produced Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Diophantus, Thucydides, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes…..

      • DataExplorer says:

        According to Francis Galton, many of the women from the Athenian educated class became courtesans and ended up with low fertility. I think he also cited migration both in and out of the region as factors.

    • Anon says:

      I disagree with this.

      This assumes all these ancient civilizations are better than their modern counterparts. They aren’t. Modern Egypt is more civilized than ancient Egypt, as uncivilized we think modern Egypt is. Ancient civilizations would’ve been comparable to modern Laos or something, if not worse.

      These ancient civilizations were civilized -for their time-. Nothing happened to them. They didn’t decline, they hit their peak and stagnated, other people rose above them. Modern Europe/America/NE Asia aren’t the heirs to ancient civilizations, they’re a step above.

      Modern violent, uncontributing, cocaine trade-fueled Central America is absolutely a fitting heir to the Mayans, backwards, superstitious modern Egypt is absolutely a continuation of ancient Egypt.

  15. Cplusk says:

    I hope someone will test Parsi iq before they go extinct.

  16. Roberto641 says:

    What’s the COLOR code on the map? Robert Keith Brooklyn, NY

  17. spottedtoad says:

    There are a lot of smart people in China but guessing this map overestimates the average by a large margin. Upwardly mobile neighborhood schools in Shanghai are not representative.
    I wouldn’t have expected Uruguay to be higher than Argentina.

  18. Our Dumb World, fresh perspective.

    First of all this is a wonderful piece of writing. It’s clear, it is funny, it presents a logical argument with multiple pieces of scientific evidence without ever getting too lost in detail, it works on multiple levels.

    For all the social scientist types out there babbling their wishful thinking upon us just link to this blog thread and say “you’re wrong, refute this.” Hit them with those four words and link to this. No sense wasting time trying to explain what folks refuse to believe or reading what the fools will respond with, the dumb world is hopeless. Just a small percentage of the world is genetically lucky enough to see the world complexly and in that small group belief trumps evidence nine times out of ten in this specific subject area.

    What will change things? When will the reality of what this map shows become a leading indicator for how the economic world is structured?

    Words, even very well written words with lots of evidence only lying eyes cannot see wont change most folks perspective. But something will. Proof would, proof will, eventually.

    This is the century that biology will take great strides forward. We will know quite soon why there is such a large variation in human intelligence from the genes a human was given at birth. Parents will be able to choose brighter children who shall lead far happier more successful lives. It is going to happen and it is going to be this century. First a few countries, then more and more.

    Of course we can have a dark swan event, but that is a just bit more likely than a meteor drilling a perfect whole through the planet. In this dumb world everybody is completely preoccupied with the present, the future can’t be predicted so don’t bother thinking about it seems to be the most popular belief.

    But popular beliefs are like popular music, they fade away quickly and sound awful soon enough.

    • Janon says:

      Brighter people don’t necessarily live happier or more fulfilled lives. They’re often more aware of how pointless life is and how they are being screwed by their social and economic position.

      I’m skeptical that mass adoption of embryo selection for intelligence is near at hand. Most people don’t have the foresight to give up making babies the old-fashioned way. The people who will be most likely to take advantage of embryo selection for intelligence are the people who are already on the right side of the bell curve.

      • I share your skepticism that any form of artificial manipulation of the natural process is close at hand. But by the end of this century I am guessing it will be happening. The method you have specified will be first to be implemented but it won’t be the last or the best one. Beyond that, who knows.

      • maciano says:

        It’s likely Some country will start praciticing genetic engineering. China? Israel? UK? Some East Euro country? Australia? Japan? Heck, UAE is open to anything except forbidden in 700.

        Even some benign African dictator might be open to aan trial. Sure beats aid or Chinese colonization.

        If one of these countries pulls through, the global bell curve might be seen as a health issue, like measles or tuberculosis. And it is, in a way.

        Don’t be pessimistic abt potentially good things.

  19. It’s too bad most people can’t accept the obvious overwhelming contribution IQ has to any scientific or civilizational achievement because we then could go on to discuss other interesting contributions to human achievement besides intelligence.

    Europe was the center of the founding of the scientific revolution. Yet the smartest sub-population in Europe – Ashkenazi Jews – made nary a contribution to this revolution for the first three centuries of its development.

    Europe may not have even possessed the smartest large population on the Eurasian continent at the time of the Scientific Revolution. We shouldn’t be confident about using modern IQ tests to make assumptions concerning populations that existed four centuries ago – especially since the psychometric differences between white Europeans and East Asians today are not large – but the civilizational accomplishments of Ming China and during the Muromachi/Edo period in Japan suggest that East Asians at that time were at least as smart as their European contemporaries.

    Nevertheless, those East Asians, too, missed out on the Scientific Revolution, even though they were introduced to its most important astrological and technological advantages quite early.

    So we have this marvel of ironies: the most important intellectual development in millennia, perhaps since the invention of writing, took place on a continent that 1) may not have been the smartest large region on the Eurasian continent and 2) didn’t require a single contribution from that continent’s smartest subgroup (i.e., Ashkenazi Jews) that would later dominate many scientific fields in the twentieth century.

    Why? Were there other individual contributions to the Scientific revolution besides IQ that were less obvious when looking at the world as a whole? Sure, a place obviously needed smart people if it was going to happen. But what about other characteristics, like a love for learned disputation? A questioning of authority? An openness to exploration? Etc.

    Obviously European Jews would have some of those covered, but what about East Asians?

    • XRay says:

      Pincher, thoughtful thought. My opinion, something is being missed. Not sure yet, what.

      • Greying Wanderer says:

        Barbarian restlessness imo – too much is no good but as populations are pacified by civilization they pass through a sweet spot where the restlessness is applied to discovery instead of violence and as they pass beyond that sweet spot it declines.

        So China / India etc passed through their sweet spot early – northern Europe late.

        If true it should be the Slav’s turn – if their kids get enough iodine.

        • SonOfRekab says:

          “If true it should be the Slav’s turn – if their kids get enough iodine.”

          I am not sure if it is the lack of iodine or the excess of vodka.
          could be both.

    • Ilya says:

      The answer likely lies in inter-societal competition. When societies compete (including non-industrial scale internecine warfare) — ie including on cultural level, you have the right ingredients for success: cohesion, breeding for IQ, and constant invention.

      The Chinese were more creative during the Warring States period. Japanese were good at playing catch-up, too, as exemplified by Nobunaga.

      This is an argument for nationalism. How this works out in (currently) non-Malthusian world will probably have something to do with either religion or strict top-down control (autocracy).

      • Frau Katze says:

        A good point. Europe hasn’t done as well since they destroyed the old order with WW I and II. What if the USA hadn’t existed to give massive help postwar?

        It’s fluky. The same competitiveness that was so helpful at one time just about destroyed them at another time. The whole leap forward in Europe might never have happened if some bits of earlier earlier history had been different.

        • Ilya says:

          I’d say, mutually assured destruction via nuclear weapons could have prevented a lot of the tragedy by changing the calculus of going into war. Had Germans gotten decent surrender conditions after WW1 and if nukes appeared on scene before 1941, it could have been a much better world not only because the senseless bloodshed that killed so many great people could have been avoided, but also because it could have been a much more sane world.

          On the other hand, the processes that started out during Enlightenment (emancipation), could have still led to decay… I dare to imagine, however, that said decay could have been localized to one or two countries (say, England, France) and between-nation competition could have corrected for it. Hard to know, but I still think it would have been better.

          • Frau Katze says:

            Counter factual history is always interesting but impossible to prove. So many factors go into it. But it’s hard to imagine much worse than what happened.

            Some historians have said that if Britain had stayed out, Germany would have won WW I. That sounds awful, but I bet not as bad as the real course of events. The Germans, in 2016, seem to be running the EU.

            • Ilya says:

              Yes, hard to prove but also hard to imagine that situation would have been worse than what actually precipitated from late 30’s to mid 40’s, short of outright nuclear war. Even the latter might have been a better outcome, judging by what happened with Japan.

              It’s possible that something like the EU would have existed across Europe, excluding England and the USSR. It would have been dominated by Germany and France, one way or another, maybe even leading to creation of a New Frankia, along the lines of Charlemagne’s empire. It could have been a much more competitive, less nihilistic and interesting world!

            • Anonymous says:

              Interesting idea!

              Also Europe might not have needed massive help after wwii if the US hadn’t gotten involved in the first place.. Everything got destroyed by the Germans fighting us!

    • akarlin says:

      I attempted an explanation of this “East Asian paradox” here.

      I am currently expanding it into a book.

      Re-Jews in particular, their percentage of the European population was much smaller at the beginning of the Scientific Revolution than by the late 19th century. So you had much higher numbers of them. Second, back then their intellectual efforts were almost entirely focused on religion, with the rabbinates taking a dim view of cognitive ventures into the secular world (e.g. see Spinoza). I recall Charles Murray having a chapter on this very topic in Human Accomplishment.

      • Ilya says:

        On the (non-Modern) Orthodox side, they still do. At least, kinda. And I sympathize with this position. Theirs might be the last word yet.

        Either way, mentioning this but neglecting to say that the societies in which the Jews lived made everything possible to prevent and habituate Jews from participating in pretty much every professsion (since at least around 1050 AD, discounting everything else, till late 1700s)– this is like mentioning the unusual fart smell in the room, but neglecting to point out the presence of the gorilla whose bowels emit it.

        Speaking of Scientific Revolution, you are either forgetting or are not aware of the considerably larger number of Ashkenazi Jews right before the 1648 Cossack uprising, an uprising that resulted not only in huge casualties but also cultural shift within Jewry known as Chassidism (see above).

        • Difference Maker says:

          That still belies the fact that Jews, even the Ashkenazim, did not come up with it. We appreciate the contributions of the secular Jews, but it still goes both ways. Even in Roman times there was thought that the Jewish religion required them to be mankind haters, haters of mankind, and the Old Testament hardly is dispositive of this notion.

          Indeed, it is the very fanaticism of the Judaean hill tribes, a feature perhaps of Middle Eastern religions generally, that overcame the Hellenizing faction and repudiated the Greeks, then rebelling against the Romans, that there is even a Jewish diaspora. No doubt a feature, and not a bug, to some.

        • akarlin says:

          Sophie Germain made major contributions to mathematics even though as a woman she was not even allowed to attend university lectures and had to pose as a man to get access. Where there is a will (and the intellect) there is a way.

          I am skeptical about the real merits of these claims of exclusion and discrimination, which Jews tend to exaggerate at least with regards to Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union.

          In any case it’s not like the Jews were a poor community. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nobody was stopping them from exploring the natural sciences from within the synagogue (modern science itself having been born in European monasteries).

          The far more logical and banal explanation is the demographic and internal cultural one: There were far fewer Jews in 1500 than 1900 (both relatively and absolutely), and far more more of them were seriously constrained by religion during the earlier period.

          • Ilya says:

            “Skeptical about discrimination”

            Gratefully, I don’t have to convince every presumptuous degenerate of the truth.

            “Not poor”

            Big misconception. There were many poor Jews, especially, as shtetl life bloomed, and populations increased in 19th century. The reason many Jews were able to survive at all was because the rich men of communities were buying everything made through the labor of fellow Jews, including properly slaughtered animals. There was also a non-trivial amount of charity. But I don’t need to convince anyone who is skeptical. My life and wellbeing don’t depend on that.

        • syonredux says:

          “Either way, mentioning this but neglecting to say that the societies in which the Jews lived made everything possible to prevent and habituate Jews from participating in pretty much every professsion”

          Dunno. I don’t recall reading about Christians preventing Jews from obtaining texts on mathematics,physics, etc.

          Traditional Jewish culture simply didn’t care about those subjects. It was concerned with producing Talmudic scholars and businessmen, not scientists.

          • gcochran9 says:

            Both Rabbinical Judaism and Islam more or less banned (responsa/fatwa) natural philosophy and science around the same time in the 1300s. I suspect those bans were connected.

            • Ilya says:

              If I’m recollecting properly, the late Patricia Crone in her “Pre-Industrial Societies” wrote that in Western (especially, North-Western) Europe there were two separate spheres of power: the one of church/monasteries and the one of petty barons and merchantry/autonomous guilds of city states.

              My own take inspired by that: in Islam (and, of course, Judaism) there was never such prominent division: control over population was always in the hands of religious authorities, via madrasas etc, and this was only exacerbated when, as you put it, the Mongols started decapitating intellectual centers of the Muslim world, where lots of Jews lived too. So, as far as the Eastern world was concerned, Jewry wasn’t fairing well there around 1300. In Spain, things turned really turbulent for Jews long before that, by conclusion of 11th century.

              Of course, part of the reason for such power-unipolarity and decline of scientific entrepreneurship has something to do with IQ, but I think that one should not discount the cultural/civilizational factor here. In Judaism the situation might have been more extreme. Living among host nations, the members of these communities were dependent on communal support for their livelihood and proper family formation — especially so for the higher classes residing in Europe (see “Dutch Jewry: Its History and Secular Culture (1500-2000)”). Virtually no one, i.e. only someone like Spinoza, who probably did so with support of his non-Jewish, secular-leaning Dutch friends, could afford to abandon their community without explicitly converting to the religion of the host populations.

              Anyway, the point I’m driving at is that once you have power over masses completely concentrated in the hands of the clergy, the only way for science to happen is via: 1) high IQ and 2) an internal ideology that is free of stipulations that forbid intellectual deviation from preceding authority/reinterpretation. In Islam, it seems, IQ might have decreased and power shifted towards towards the hardliners (which might also be partly due to the cultural DNA). In Judaism, the latter seems to have been the case, due to lack of defensible land and constant pressure to fit in and find compromise with the host nations. This kept the authorities waging ideological war on two fronts: 1) keeping the local kings/church not too pissy (dina d’malkhuta dina) and 2) being wary of experimenting with far-fetched/freewheeling ideas, especially those inspired by outside heretics, ideas that would somehow perturb the established cosmogony upon which their order rested, dangerous to internal cohesion.

              Prestige in community was conferred via religious learning and/or financial success (in Europe, mediated via banking/management/trade) channeled on re-investment (and charity) into community. Science and tinkering would be abnormal phenomena from that perspective. However, philosophy, law and math would be more natural, especially, when external pressure on the communities subsided due to general prosperity, after the Industrial Revolution commenced.

              • syonredux says:

                And, of course, ancient Israel wasn’t exactly known for its contributions to the arts and the sciences. Meanwhile, the Greeks gave us Archimedes, Hipparchus, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Euclid, Diophantus, Eratosthenes, etc, etc

              • syonredux says:

                “However, philosophy, law and math would be more natural, ”

                And yet the European Jewish community during the period 1500-1800 wasn’t exactly setting the world on fire with its breakthroughs in mathematics. Meanwhile, Christian Europe produced Newton, Leibniz, Wallis, Descartes, Viète, Fermat, etc, etc

              • Ilya says:

                My argument was not about that time period. It was about the medieval era and slightly after. The claim I was making was about cultural openness to certain kinds of endeavors. I am confident that during the time of birth of Newton there were Ashkenazim who could match him in talent. It’s just that culture was directing their efforts into other endeavors.

                But I get where you’re coming from :-). Very well about the culture of Athens! Although other cultures that surrounded the cosmopolitan Athens were not as sharp, the residents of Shomron before 726 BC and residents of Jerusalem before 600 BC were definitely ahead of European north steppe barbarians who, likely, were still painting their faces with woad.

                And someone invented the alphabet… Guess.

              • syonredux says:

                ” I am confident that during the time of birth of Newton there were Ashkenazim who could match him in talent. It’s just that culture was directing their efforts into other endeavors.”

                Which is the point. Traditional Jewish culture did not care about things like mathematics and physics.

              • syonredux says:

                “And someone invented the alphabet… Guess.”

                Technically speaking, the Phoenicians developed an abjad. The first true alphabet was invented by the Greeks.

              • Ilya says:

                The first true alphabet was invented by Canaanites, around 19th or 18th century. http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=36&Issue=2&ArticleID=6

                One might argue that Phoenicians played some role, too. Greeks were tertiary, at best.

              • syonredux says:

                If it doesn’t have vowels, it’s an abjad, not a true alphabet. The Greeks were the ones who, building on the Phoenician abjad, created the first true alphabetical writing system.

            • Ilya says:

              And just as an addendum: R Abraham ibn Ezra, who lived in Spain during 11th century, was daring to espouse some of these dangerous ideas already:

              http://thetorah.com/the-significance-of-ibn-ezras-position/

              Who knows what would have happened had that Golden Age in Spain lasted another 4 centuries or so…

      • A Karlin,

        See my comment addressed to you below.

    • BB753 says:

      You may have to reconsider your hypotheses.
      Particularly
      1): Could it be that at that time, Europe was the smartest region of Eurasia, particularly England, Scotland and the various German states? We still don’t know today what the real average IQ of the Chinese is, so we have no reliable way to extrapolate Chinese IQ back then.
      2) A large population with an average iq of say 100 ( gentiles) , will produce more talent than a small community of 110 (Jews). So their intellectual contribution isn’t vital.

      • akarlin says:

        We do have a pretty good idea of China’s IQ: http://akarlin.com/2012/08/analysis-of-chinas-pisa-2009-results/

        It would not be surprising if West European and Chinese genotypic IQs were more equal back then. After all, dysgenics has been acting on the UK for a considerably longer period than China.

        That said, you don’t particularly need to make those assumptions. The following suffice:

        (1) England had a far higher literacy rate (an amazing ~40% by the mid 17th century), which in turn was substantially linked to the greater accessibility of the alphabetic system;

        (2) The West Europeans and especially the British had consistently better nutritional profiles than the Chinese since at least the Black Death, which is also relevant to IQ;

        (3) There is also of course the commonly noted (and explored at length by J. Thompson) observation that East Asians just seem to be less creative than Europeans. This is a controversial thesis, with much less hard support than a lot of other HBD positions, though personally I think it’s largely true.

        • Anonyw says:

          The creativity thesis has been measured with science Nobels or patents and so on. In the former case the list of 2000’s Japanese laureates is impressive and comparable to large Northwest European countries, per capita as well, and far outstrips say Russia (especially sans Ashkenazi) or Spain over the same period.

          Lower performance during 20th century, but over its first half Japan was clearly economically behind NW Europe and maybe some kind of viscosity should be expected in more sophisticated areas of development…

          Then the question becomes “can China or Korea repeat this performance”?

          • Jim says:

            Certainly in mathematics the Japanese have a record in the twentieth century comparable to Western European countries.

            • martin says:

              Can you be specific? Can you, for instance, name one Japanese Number Theorist or one Japanese Logician or Set Theorist that is up there with the likes of say Littlewood or Turing. I choose England because England has made a fairly modest contribution to Pure Maths compared to say Germany or France.

              And how is it possible for China to have a population 26 times the size of England yet to have far fewer famous living physicists and mathematicians? It’s not as if research maths requires vast infrastructure and expensive apparatus.

              • Jim says:

                Takagi was the individual who established the basic results of class field theory. This was certainly one of the most important accomplishments of 20th century number theory, perhaps the most important.

                Iwasawa theory has played a very important role in number theory in recent times and is a very important part of the Wiles-Taylor Theorem on the modularity of certain elliptic curves, a result which implies Fermat’s Last Theorem.

                Shimura has made extensive contributions to the theory of automorphic forms, elliptic curves, modular forms, Shimura varieties, etc. particular in regard to their arithmetical aspects.

                By the way it was a student of Shimura, Taniyama, who was the individual who formulated
                the Modularity Conjecture. This conjecture was at first greeted with great skepticism. Back sometime in the sixties Andre Weil and Jean Pierre Serre met with Shimura while visiting Japan after the suicide of Taniyama. At the beginning of the meeting Weil and Serre both thought Taniyama’s ideas were nuts. After talking through the afternoon with Shimura ( who had written his dissertation under Weil’s supervision) they were both “converted” to Taniyama’s conjecture. Afterwards Shimura proved modularity for elliptic curves admitting complex multiplication and Weil proved it for curves having a Hecke Groessencharacter.

                While the Hardy-Littlewood Circle Method is very useful it is certainly not as important as class field theory. The Hardy-Littlewood Circle Method is a technique ( certainly very useful). It is not in itself a great result.

                It is possible that you may have an exaggerated idea of Turing’s significance in logic. I certainly respect him but he is not in the same class as Goedel, Skolem, Herbrand.

              • Jim says:

                Of the three Japanese mathematicians who won Fields Medals – Kodaira was one of the greatest figures in the theory of complex manifolds which in turn was one of the most spectacular developments in the mathematics of the latter part of the twentieth century.They should have given him at least two Fields Medals. Hironaka’s proof of the existence of resolution of singularities of algebraic varieties over fields of characteristic zero was one of the very major theorems of 20th century mathematics. Mori’s work has completely changed the the theory of algebraic varieties in more than two dimensions. His contributions have led to more knowledge of three-dimensional algebraic varieties than had been learned in the entire time prior to his work.

                Oka worked before the time of the Field’s Medals but he probably ranks as the greatest figure in the theory of several complex variables in the twentieth century.

              • Jim says:

                I meant to say “algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero”

              • Jim says:

                Britain has a pretty good record in twentieth century mathematics – Whitehead, Atiyah, Mordell, Donaldson, Hodge, Wall just to name a few that come immediately to mind.

              • Jim says:

                Chen was imprisoned during the Cultural Revolution and his health was destroyed. His most famous work although done before the Cultural Revolution was only published after it was over.

        • Anon says:

          I personally would go with the third option, although I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s creativity.

          It’s drive. Testosterone, or some other hormone, which east Asians have some of the least of, which is also evident in their penis size(I’m not childishly pointing this out to insult them, it’s relevant, imo penis size may also be directly linked with why Indians/Dravidians are more peaceful than SSAs despite being in a tropical environment, and more peaceful than Arab populations despite Indians having lower IQs).

          For a low IQ person, more testosterone may mean simply puffing up your chest more and getting into fights more often. For a higher IQ person, it works as drive to innovate or to compete.

          I think Mongoloid populations have always had higher IQs than Caucasians throughout history probably dating back to the paleolithic. Accomplishment differences are likely due to something else. Sami, Mongolian, Vietnamese and Inuit IQ makes me think this. Sami of course not being full Mongoloids but there must be a reason they have higher IQs than their Scandinavian counterparts. Another poster on this comment section say the Mongolian IQ source may be a bit sketchy, but I guess all of them aren’t going to be 100% confirmed. Vietnam is also an estimate rather than a direct study, but still. Inuit IQ is actually at a low 91 but something has to explain why they have a higher IQ than Arabs. Native Americans are a bit of a mystery(of which the Inuit are significantly admixed with), but we do know there are significantly large genetic differences between Amerindians and mainland East Asians. Amerindians haven’t even selected for light skin despite their climate.

          Overall, we just need way more IQ data, which would be easier if it wasn’t such a taboo topic. I’d love some IQ data of rural, poor native Siberians. I know we have PISA scores from Russian regions but that still isn’t as accurate as a Raven’s Matrices Test and what have you.

          • Anonyw says:

            Poor rural native Siberians were rested by Lynn, not smarter than poor rural native russians.

            “A sample of 28 Evenk/Tungus village children in the Russian Far East was tested with the Standard Progressive Matrices Plus and obtained a British IQ of 80. A sample of 13 ethnic Russian children growing up under similar conditions was tested with the same method and obtained a British IQ of 85. The results suggest that cognitive development of both groups is impeded by the isolated conditions under which the children in these villages grow up.”

            At this point it looks like just a select group of East Asians has higher than average IQ. Saudis and many other wealthy Gulf peoples have depressed their IQ through cousin marriage.

            • Anon says:

              Have a source for that?

              There’s no way Evenki people get an IQ of 80 while Lynn has Aleuts and Inuits at around 91, reaching as high as 93-96 in some sources he cites.

              Also, both are far northern/arctic circle people, it’s important to also know the IQs of more inland rural Siberians like the Yakut and perhaps people around the Altai and Lake Baikal. Significant differences in climate and it’s a reasonable theory that arctic conditions don’t necessarily cause selection for intelligence(as well as light skin), rather northern but seasonal conditions(having to prepare for winter, etc, while arctic people don’t, much like tropical people). I’m well aware the views of most readers of this blog are more likely to go along with the blog author’s point of view(that being civilization is what mainly caused selection for intelligence), though.

              Not that it matters(because obviously memory =/ IQ) unless you want to enter into a spelling bee or something but, Inuits definitely have some of the best memory in the world, on par with the Japanese and higher than Caucasians, their Caucasian Alaskan counterparts anyway, and that isn’t going to be because of farming, urbanization and what not.

              I’ve seen lots of people say Arab low IQ is because of inbreeding, I’m pretty sure if such large populations can be that inbred, Inuits are going to be as well. I’m not sure how you’d measure something like that anyway, the official numbers don’t put cousin marriage at astronomical numbers.

              • Anonyw says:

                Source for Evenk IQ 80 is a study by Vladimir Shibaev and Richard Lynn, published in Mankind Quarterly Volume 56, No. 2. I quoted the abstract.

                Evenks are a very good example of native Siberians. Yakuts are more recent Turkic invaders from the south, and modern Aleuts are a mixed Russian-Native population more analoguous to modern Peruvians than to truly indigenous peoples. Eskimos might be smarter than the average Siberian or Native American – after all they invaded and killed off their predecessors like the Dorset people – but that doesn’t mean Siberian intelligence exceeds that of Russians or other Europeans, never mind East Asians. Rather it’s more on the Arab or Native American level. Lynn got 92 for Kuwaitis, about the same as Eskimos and higher than Evenks.

                Near Eastern and Pakistani muslims often practise cousin marriage, visible from their runs of homozygosity, which accumulates harmful effects faster than small population size.

              • Anon says:

                To Anonyw:

                Lynn has Kuwait as 87 in his latest book. Saudi Arabia is 80, Yemen is 83, Oman is 86(differences in SSA admixture immediately stick out to me here). There’s not a MENA population that goes above an average of 90 other than Jewish groups(although I wouldn’t be surprised if groups like the Druze surpass 90).

                I see no reason to believe Arab low IQ is solely because of inbreeding rather than the same main culprits for SSA low IQ.

                Most IQs are taken from multiple studies with much larger samples. I doubt one study showing an IQ of 80 for a few Evenki children will be accurate.

              • Anonyw says:

                Kuwaiti IQ 92 as well as Egyptian IQ of up to 89 (but other tests give just 80) were obtained with matrix testing by Lynn, the studies are in recent Mankind quarterlies. There is also a study where Cambodians obtain an IQ of 85. Lynn’s involved with these things so they should be considered updates to his books. It’s clear from the results that the high East Asian IQ involves Chinese, Japanese and Koreans but not Siberians or Southeast Asians.

          • Jim says:

            Finnish Sami are about 20% Asian genetically and Russian Sami about 30% genetically.

            • Anon says:

              and yet have a higher IQ than Norwegians(well, by one point, at 101) despite being reindeer herders.

              • Anonyw says:

                The majority live in towns or villages and do not herd reindeer but live like ethnic Norwegians in the northern parts, those who do herd use modern tech for it, even choppers if they’re in the big leagues.

                Poor reindeer herding peoples, like the Evenk, can be found in Siberia, and their test results are not really impressive.

              • Jim says:

                Unless there is a really extensive amount of data on Sami and Norwegian psychometrics I wouldn’t take a reported one point difference between the Sami and Norwegian too seriously. Probably just noise.

          • Frau Katze says:

            In Canada, the natives have a very severe problem with alcoholism. A tendency to resist alcoholism seems to have developed in Southern Europe and the Fertile Crescent (as exposure began early and so did natural selection. The Northern Europeans have noticeably more of a problem, as exposure came later. Still, the alcoholics are in the minority). The Chinese also have some kind of resistance.

            But for the natives of Canada, exposure came extremely late in evolutionary terms and they have such a bad problem that I don’t believe you can even get a decent IQ estimate. Maternal alcohol consumption really hits the IQ of the child (fetal alcohol syndrome).

            Evolutionary selection of course has ceased in our modern world so it looks pretty hopeless for them. I also have a theory (impossible to prove) that the more intelligent and non-alcoholics natives might have decided that life on the reservation didn’t offer much so they decided to join the invaders and intermarried.

            I lived in a small town in the interior of BC as a child (early 1960s). My mother told to never make insulting remarks about natives. She had discovered that all sorts of people had a native grandparent or even a parent. The implication was that these mixed people were indistinguishable from 100% European descended. So keep quiet! You never know.

            • AllenM says:

              LoL, evolution is taking them out of the gene pool with astonishing rapidity. Quite simply they will vanish for the most part within another couple hundred years. Tribes like the Navajo are an aberration, with most modern tribes barely managing an increase in real numbers as they introduce ridiculous blood quantum tests to spread their casino wealth.

              The really funny part is to look at the tribes of America, and see how they disappear from East to West- it is all really based on their time inside the frontier of settlement.

              With time, they disappear into the general population. Genetic testing of the owners of the Fox Casino would be fascinating.

              Alcohol and processed sugar are problematic for native american genetics, but combined with a sedentary lifestyle they are destructive beyond belief. The Plains tribes illustrate the alcohol issues, and the prime example of the sugar issue is the all of the Pima. Desert adaption was wonderful for long term survival in harsh conditions, but now it is extremely detrimental.

              Natural selection is operating at a rapid pace, and the winnowing of nature continues in spite of fond wishes to the contrary.

              • Jim says:

                I guess American Indians will all eventually look like Elizabeth Warren. Maybe all American whites will be able to claim Affirmative Action goodies by claiming a long ago Indian great-great-grandmother.

              • gcochran9 says:

                Increase in the nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native population between the 2000 Census and 2010 Census. The population of this group increased by 26.7 percent during this period compared with the overall population growth of 9.7 percent. Source: Census 2000 Brief: Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin

              • Frau Katze says:

                Disappearing? You couldn’t be more wrong about Canada. They’re one ethnicity that is increasing. Why not have lots of kids if the govt is supporting you and you don’t have a job?

                (They don’t have natives running casinos in Canada. A lot reserves are far from population centres. It wouldn’t work.).

            • Anon says:

              Are you sure MENA people/southern Europeans have much of a resistance to alcohol? I was under the impression lack of southern European/MENA alcoholism was due to culture, while NW Europeans had the most resistance, and eastern Europeans/east Asians have little resistance. NW Europeans drink a lot, you don’t see a lot of the negative affects of alcohol consumption problems in these countries as you do among Native Americans or a place like Russia. Southern Europeans simply drink less(save for the Portuguese), studies confirm this. MENA people don’t drink at all(mostly), of course. Turks are one MENA ethnicity that do drink and they have a lot more petty murder issues than a MENA country where alcohol is outlawed.

              If by alcoholism you solely mean resistance to addiction to alcohol, again, is there any science behind that or do people just go by southern Europeans drink less? Could very easily be a cultural thing, and as for the Middle-East, it’s illegal in most countries, so.

              As much as much of this silly “counter-jihad” bunch likes to blame everything on Islam, I always thought the Cologne and other various other European mass sexual assaults were due to lack of Arab experience with alcohol, the culprits were not even likely Religious. In footage of some of the NYE Cologne videos, you can see mostly young Arab males, nearly all of them holding beer. Native Germans do the same yet the sexual assault doesn’t happen.

              I’d be curious to know Arab alcohol consumption from the post-Islam era and also whether Indo-Europeans or neolithic farmers have a larger/longer history with alcohol. I would guess the Indo-Europeans, which would make NW Europeans having more resistance to the negative affects of alcohol make more sense.

              • Anon says:

                On another note on Russians/other eastern Europeans, I don’t know how legit this statement is but I once read alcohol was even largely foreign to Russian serfs as late as the 1800s. They could very well be recent new comers to the substance, which explains the problems despite around the same drinking rate as Germany.

              • Frau Katze says:

                Culture might account for it one way: If drinking is verboten due to religious reasons – Islam, certain Protestants – a person with a biological tendency may never drink a drop thus the genes aren’t expressed.

                There is addiction in my family. A niece with bad problems while her 3 siblings have no problems. My father had problem, along with 2 brothers. I believe I and my only sibling may carry a tendency, but it’s also combined with alcohol making us sick after a small amount. We have no problems. Getting sick is a strong deterrent.

                We are Northern European descended. (Largely Celtic, who seem to be worse than the English. I have only anecdotal reasons for thinking this.)

                We suspect that one or both of our paternal grandparents carried the genes for it, but they were of a strict Protestant sect that never drank. In the freer atmosphere of the mid 20th century their children stopped observing that prohibition.

                Our mother had no tendency. Drink just wasn’t her thing (she was also half English),

                I don’t believe “lack of experience” alone would cause men to become rapists. Our father and his brothers certainly had no tendency along those lines.

                You’d have likely to have a tendency to rape too. That likely is also is a combo of genetics/culture.

                I don’t know about the science. As with so much to do with genetics, it had become politically incorrect to even study it. I’d be very curious to know if it had ever been studied.

              • JayMan says:

                “Are you sure MENA people/southern Europeans have much of a resistance to alcohol? I was under the impression lack of southern European/MENA alcoholism was due to culture, while NW Europeans had the most resistance, and eastern Europeans/east Asians have little resistance.”

                Alcohol consumption/propensity towards alcoholism in Europe inversely correlates with agricultural time depth. Lowest in Southern Europe, increasing as you go northeast.

            • JayMan says:

              “But for the natives of Canada, exposure came extremely late in evolutionary terms and they have such a bad problem that I don’t believe you can even get a decent IQ estimate. Maternal alcohol consumption really hits the IQ of the child (fetal alcohol syndrome).”

              That is probably NOT true, or is at least highly oversold (genetic confounding).

              The few sibling control studies I know of show that to be the case.

              • Frau Katze says:

                You doubt that maternal drinking affects IQ? I have to admit I’ve never read the technical literature, just absorbed the zeitgeist that pregnant women must not drink! This advice was just coming in when my first child was born in 1976. I remember the date because of that.

                I sometimes wondered why the effect hadn’t been noticed in other populations, as the taboo on women (in the West) drinking in general disappeared long before 1976. I remember being told that even modest drinking (say, 2 drinks a week) was going to lead to problems. There must have been lots of women in the 1950s who drank lightly during pregnancy.

            • benespen says:

              In the US, I hear lots of people talk about their Native American ancestors, but the quantity usually seems to be exaggerated. Nonetheless, I have nieces and nephews that are 1/4 Hopi, and if you didn’t know that you wouldn’t be able to tell. After their grandfather left the reservation, everyone from that point on was 100% culturally assimilated.

    • Keep talking Pincher, because i like it, your thoughts stir mine. Anyhow to follow up on your thoughts about why all those smart East Asians were left behind by the industrial revolution in Europe. Competition in Europe during the middle ages rewarded the most innovative while in China tradition and a dominant ruler kept things the same. Shake the bottle so that competition is rewarded in East Asia while institutionalized ways are maintained in the west and pesto-chango you might have a new winner on top of the pile. IQ is incredibly important if there is a measurable difference between groups as to who dominates. But sometimes some places high IQ people are rewarded for their highest expression while in other places they are told to keep in their place.

  20. In case you missed it: Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States

    http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/05/037929
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12063588

    Thoughts?

    I post this, here, because I couldn’t find you e-mail address at U of Utah.

  21. Garett Jones says:

    My thanks to Gregory Cochran for the mention, and for his prior review.

    I hope that technically inclined readers will take the time to consider the underpinnings of the Paradox of IQ, since it’s a genuine intellectual puzzle awaiting further answers. My most rigorous statement of the puzzle is in my Economic Inquiry piece with Schneider, “IQ in the Production Function: Evidence from Immigrant Earnings.” I offer a link to an ungated PDF in my name.

    After all, if IQ is as important as a lot of us say it is, why doesn’t the competitive labor market agree with us? If smarts are worth so much, why doesn’t the free market pay that much for smarts? Note that this isn’t a story of correlations, it’s a story of quantities, of how the semi-elasticity of wages with respect to IQ is much larger for nations than for individuals.

    Hive Mind offers three major categories of explanations for the Paradox of IQ: Political externalities, the Feldstein-Horioka patience channel, and the O-Ring/Foolproof general equilibrium model (based on a more technical paper). In any case, we’re facing the same true story regarding less-skilled immigration to rich countries: The private market in rich countries pays a lot for the services of less-skilled immigrants, which is a sign that on average they’re extremely productive by global standards. Explaining how that can be true while at the same time entire nations of less-skilled people live in desperate poverty is a puzzle worth resolving. My O-Ring/Foolproof model offers the resolution with the most optimistic implications for less-skilled immigration, and I think it’s one that explains quite a lot of what we see in the real world. But of course it’s unlikely to be the whole story.

    As I note in HM, there are reasons for thinking that–particularly in democracies–lower-skill immigrants will hurt institutional quality in the long run. But some people don’t live in the long run, and of course some people don’t live in democracies. Either way, there are reasons to think that low-skilled immigration can be genuinely pie-growing, net wealth-creating, when people aren’t concerned about the political side effects of less-skilled migration.

    As for myself, I live in the long run, and I’m somewhat likely to live in democracies for the rest of my life, so the political externalities of migration are an important issue to me. That’s part of the reason I’m enthusiastic about Canadian-style skill-focused immigration policy. But at the same time, consider the GCC countries and Singapore, nations with reasonably credible guest worker programs: those are places that can offer the benefits of high levels of less-skilled migration without the same risks to institutional quality. Sometime you can come pretty close to holding ceteris paribus. And in this case, holding ceteris paribus means an opportunity to grow the global pie.

    • maciano says:

      Maybe you’ve gotten this question before, so forgive me, but aren’t here economic non-wealth generating reasons for not allowing in lowskilled migrants?

      I personally object to, say, Syrians & Eritreans, migrating into my country (or any other), because they raise crime rates, ruin civic mindedness in poorer areas, drop out, and set the clock back to illiberal times (which matters to me — much more than GDP or their personal increased happiness). Economists miss these things. Higher fertility and subsequent gov dependency, ditto.

      As you know, the West, absent some libertarian revolution, will never ever create a model like UAE. To make that a reality, we’d also have to repeal most of the welfare state. Not gonna happen in a democracy.

      • Garett Jones says:

        As I say in the introduction to Hive Mind (free at Stanford UP’s site, link in my name), I’m not trying to explain everything, just half of everything. Mostly I’m focused on what grows the pie, broadly construed, in the long run, and I’m interested in explaining vast disparities of wealth across countries. I think that high-IQ cultures will tend to be more Coasian, more win-win, and I think that’s a big part of quality of life.

        Other people are welcome to take on other topics related to migration. I suspect that a mixture of game theory, price theory, experiments, and regressions will continue to be a great source of answers on this important topic.

        On the topic of diversity and human capital, I strongly recommend this nice essay by Richwine, and not just because he discusses my research. It’s entitled A Smart Solution to the Diversity Dilemma:

        https://www.aei.org/publication/a-smart-solution-to-the-diversity-dilemma/

        • maciano says:

          How can you not include costs (like crime & gov dependency) in such an analysis? Value added = benefits – costs

          If a Shell policy increases revenue 8%, but its costs rise 10% bc of it, it’s a shitty deal for the stockholders. You could claim: well, Shell’s got the know-how (good management & R&D) to decrease the costs again in the future w/ good policy.

          Sure. But that’s only true if you don’t repeat your cost-increasing decision over and over.

          • Garett Jones says:

            I think you’re agreeing with me! 😉

            • maciano says:

              I see.

              I thought you were arguing for open borders. But you argue instead: we’re strong enough to survive our open borders policies, if we manage to switch to a more sensible migration system.

              That could work.

              My hope is on genetical engineering.

              • Abelard Lindsey says:

                The first CRISPR babies will likely be born around 2025. They will not come of age until around 2045, and be the successful dynamic entrepreneurs we expect them to be until 2050 or so. Also, many people lack the impulse control and future time orientation to have kids the CRISPR way. They’re more likely to have kids by getting knocked up at some guys hip-hop house party. Thus, there will be increasing stratification of humans into distinct mental or cognitive classes, rather than traditional social classes.

  22. George Greene says:

    Put a legend on it.

  23. George Greene says:

    Never mind. Found the post.

  24. akarlin says:

    Economists generally reject such explanations, which is one reason that they find most of the Third World impossible to understand. I must give credit to Garret Jones, who is actually aware of this general pattern. Sure, he stepped on the dick of his own argument there at the end of his book, but he was probably lying, because he had to. Sociologists? It is to laugh.

    I was writing about this less than two years out of high school.

    http://akarlin.com/2008/03/education-as-elixir-of-growth/

    Once in college I thought that I was probably wrong… for a couple of years. In this sense at least, the higher education system is negative value added (like most Soviet factories, or the modern financial system).

  25. London Observer says:

    What kind of workplace would make a good world-in-miniature metaphor to illustrate average national IQ scores?

    Maybe a large scrapyard with a stolidly competent Ashkenazi boss, a Chinese taking care of payroll and accounts, Europeans in the roles of operations manager and maintenance engineer, a Mexican foreman, Indian crane/crusher operators, and African dump-truck drivers and scrap sorters.

    (Suspend your disbelief and assume that everyone is content with this division of labour.)

  26. j says:

    Is it easy to notice such differences? Well, for ordinary people, it’s real easy. Herero would ask Henry why Europeans were so smart – he said he didn’t know. But with the right education, it apparently becomes impossible to see. Few anthropologists know that such differences exist and even fewer admit it.

    I beg to differ. It is not easy for ordinary people to notice difference in IQ. Low IQ people lives perfectly competent and satisfactory lives in a static agricultural society and it is very difficult to discern intelligence. IQ starts to be visible when official forms must be filled, in written exam papers (specially math). In ordinary conversation a person can be perceived a “bright” and competent and knowledgeable, and that is the reason why people who is not used to objective measurement of IQ will be misled.

    Teachers do take written exams and they certainly realize that some of their students are dumb, but they will never say that in their face or in a PTA meeting. Intelligent Americans are compassive and generous people; they will not humiliate their dumb brothers. They are no lying bastards as the blogger says, “white lies” do not count as lies.

    • gcochran9 says:

      When you ask the Aché who’s the cleverest, the rank order you get from their impressions is close to the rank order from administering an IQ test.

      Maybe they’re better at it than you are?

      Anyhow, the questions is really about ranking groups, not individuals: and no, I don’t think it’s all that difficult.

    • Dale says:

      Interpersonal skills are infamous for being poorly correlated with IQ. Which isn’t so surprising when you note that IQ is the suite of cognitive facilities you use to deal with problems that you have no evolutionary adaptation for (e.g., official forms, etc., as you mention), and we’ve been doing interpersonal interaction since long before we were hominids. I wonder if there is some serious significance to this difference, though: the fact that blacks in the US do poorly on any test or activity that is seen as “academic” is well-known, but the number of American blacks that have achieved national stature (or at least fame) in politics is remarkably large for a seriously-discriminated-against group…

    • another fred says:

      “It is not easy for ordinary people to notice difference in IQ. Low IQ people lives perfectly competent and satisfactory lives in a static agricultural society and it is very difficult to discern intelligence.”

      Have you ever tried teaching people how to tie knots? Intelligence shows quite well there.

  27. Petr Hanák says:

    A friend of mine related the map to the recent shooting of the black guy by the police in Dallas and elsewhere. According to statistics, the Asians are the least likely to be shot by police. The data below comes from 2015 (number of “victims” per one million of the given ethnic). The high intelligence of the east Asians may serve as a sort of life insurance for them.
    7.27 Black
    3.51 Hispanic/Latino
    3.40 Native American
    2.93 White
    1.34 Asian/Pacific Islander

    • Jim says:

      East Asians are generally much more respectful of authority. This may be a disadvantage in coming up with revolutionary new scientific theories but I’m sure it helps in encounters with cops.

      • gcochran9 says:

        From what we know, they’re more likely to quietly take crap, rather than complain, the day they’re born.

        • spandrell says:

          They do complain a lot later; but more in a whiny passive-aggressive way.

        • Jim says:

          Before my recent retirement I worked at a company whose ownership was mostly Chinese and which employed a large number of Chinese including many from the mainland. I myself probably tend to be more respectful of authority than the average white but I was quite struck by how deferential to authority many of these people were. On the other hand one of our consultants is a very Americanized Chinese guy and he is much less like that and even seemed somewhat annoyed by the deferential attitude of some of the Chinese employees.

          There is a general pattern with East Asians – intelligent, ambitious, conformist, resilient,
          polite, very group oriented.

          The people I knew included among others a lady born in Singapore, another from Manchuria near the Korean border, a guy (very smart) from way Northwest of Beijing near the Mongolian border. I found it interesting how similar they all were in personality and character and how different they were from whites or blacks.

          One of my past coworkers was a Chinese lady who had been born in Vietnam and had been one of the boat people. She told me once of her experiences – attacked by pirates, living for years in refugee camps, treated like dirt by the Thai soldiers, finally coming to the US without any formal schooling, no English and no money. She spoke of her experiences without a trace of bitterness. She was cheerful, intelligent, ambitious, striving and focused on the future.

          • Erik Sieven says:

            yet the self-image of mainland-Chinese is completely different. They think of themselves as clever but cunning, rude, uncivilized. Many Chinese I have met tend to think that white people are all like princesses in Walt Disney movies, so nice, calm and sweet.
            They are on average actually much less violent, rude, loud etc. than the average white western person, but criticize themselves to be much to violent, loud etc.

          • et.cetera says:

            “I myself probably tend to be more respectful of authority than the average white but I was quite struck by how deferential to authority many of these people were.”

            Which “average white” do you have in mind? Compare, for example, Slovakia with any East Asian country. Or compare France with Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

            Little deference paid to authority seems to be a germanic thing more than anything.

            • Jim says:

              I was just using the term “average white” in terms of people I know in daily life. I live in Houston. I think I am more conformist and respectful of authority than the average white Texan.

  28. Erik Sieven says:

    the more blue a country is the lower is the TFR. So populations ins countries with higher IQ seem to be less adapted to modern society in terms of reproductive success.

  29. Doug says:

    People assume that there are a lot of other important environmental variables, but I sure don’t know what they are.

    Parasite burden

  30. AKarlin,

    Thanks for the link. You bring up a lot of good points.

    But here’s another paradox that might not be so easy to explain. Why did the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not contribute significantly to science?

    By 1880, the US was, after Russia, the most populous European country in the world, and that advantage in numbers over the UK, Germany, and France grew even more pronounced in subsequent decades.

    The U.S. was also the wealthiest country in the world by the end of the nineteenth century, as measured both in aggregate terms and per capita.

    This wealth transferred into healthier people. Life expectancy in the U.S. in 1900 was at least three years higher than in France, Germany, or the UK.

    Yet despite all these advantages, the United States contributed very little to the store of scientific knowledge until around WW2. Between 1901 and 1930, for example, the Netherlands (population 5 million in 1900) had nearly twice as many Nobel Prize Winners in the hard sciences and medicine/physiology as the United States (population 76 million in 1900). Germany, France and the UK had as many, and usually far more, Nobel winners in each of the three categories as the U.S. had in all three categories combined.

    Science in the mid- and late-nineteenth century America was even worse than in the early twentieth century. Europeans at the time were for the most part completely dismissive of American efforts in science, and Americans who labored in the sciences at the time did not feel those European sentiments were based on mere prejudice.

    There were some minor exceptions. American geologists, paleontologists, and zoologists were all making solid contributions to science in the nineteenth century that European scientists studied and admired. But most of those contributions were due to unique attributes the United States possessed that could not be found in Europe – animals, fossils, geological features, etc.

    As for theory, in the 1870s, the mathematician Benjamin Peirce write an important paper on algebra and the physicist Josiah Willard Gibbs wrote hugely influential papers on physical chemistry and statistical mechanics, but these men were major exceptions to the rule. America was known as a land of successful tinkerers and valued fact collectors, but not first-rate scientists.

    An excellent book on this, by the way, is The Launching of Modern American Science, 1846-1876 by Robert V. Bruce. He starts off by assessing the state of science in the United States in 1846 and briefly compares it to what was happening in Europe at the same time.

    In Germany, Helmholtz, Ohm, and Mayer worked in physics; Gauss in math; Liebig, Wöhler, Bunsen and Mitscherlich in chemistry; Bessel and Encek in astronomy; Von Baer, Müller, Schleiden, and Schwann in biology; and Humboldt in geography.

    In France, the number of scientific notables at the time was not as impressive as in Germany, but the French could still call upon Foucalt and Arago in physics; Cauchy in math, Gay-Lussac and Dumas in chemistry, Le Verrier in astronomy, and Bernard and Magendie in physiology.

    Bruce mentions to my surprise that science in England had fallen upon somewhat hard times in the mid-nineteenth century, but the English still had Faraday and Joule in physics, Babbage and Sylvester in math, Adams and John Herschel in astronomy, Hooker and Darwin in biology, and Lyell and Murchison in geology.

    When you look at these lists of names, what scientist in the U.S. in 1846 could compare?

    So I think there’s value in exploring the often wide variances in scientific achievement even when IQ is controlled for.

    • akarlin says:

      Thanks for raising this issue. I have been well aware of it and it is indeed rather difficult to explain within the strict context of AA theory. It is especially strange since as you point out the US was hardly a backwater and was in fact at the frofront of attaining mass literacy. There was one copy of The Rights of Man sold for every four Americans soon after its publication, and by 1850 most of the North-East had attained close to universal literacy – one of the first regions in the world do so. Moreover, Americans thoughout the 19th century were taller and better fed than Europeans.

      The three major explanations I have considered are:

      Throughout the 19th century the US was settling and developing a vast territory. Social mobility much greater than in Europe – and much more money to be potentially made. The highly intelligent ambitious young American presumbaly had more incentives to go into business or at least more practical/engineering pursuits than his European counterpart.
      The QWERTY/historical legacy effect: The oldest European universities such as Oxbridge, the Sorbonne, etc. have been in business since the high medieval period. Knowledge and techniques was passed from established professors onto students, who in turn became professors themselves. The Internet did not exist and the Atlantic remained a formidable barrier. I also suspect there would have been a Garett-like “hive mind” effect in academia, since to make yourself known amongst the likes of the people you mention would have required much more effort than even in the best American universities, which up until 1950 remained in substantial part prepping schools for entry into high society (at least thus argued Charles Murray in The Bell Curve). The European scientific community has been remarkably cosmopolitan since it coalesced around the time of the Scientific Revolution and the “network” it formed retained a critical enough mass to keep it dominant up until the Nazis and WW2 ripped its heart out.
      Lag time: There is a ~20-30 year lag between the emergence of world class scientists and their recognition. American science exploded in the 1950s. Partly this was due to the brain drain out of Europe both before and after the war, but evidently something much have happened in the 1920s-30s to make far more smart Americans take up and succeed at scientific careers. Of course after the war Europe was suddenly not just modestly but vastly poorer than the US, and faced the problem of rebuilding their countries; you certainly need engineering talent for that, but great scientists – not so much.

      Of course all this also ties in with the related puzzle of American exceptionalism today – why the US is so much richer (despite a substantial NAM population) and so much more scientifically productive than Europe today.

      • AKarlin,

        Lag time: There is a ~20-30 year lag between the emergence of world class scientists and their recognition.

        I have the sense that the lag time wasn’t as long in the early years of awarding the Nobel Prize. But that’s just a guess based on eyeballing the names on the lists.

        The QWERTY/historical legacy effect: The oldest European universities such as Oxbridge, the Sorbonne, etc. have been in business since the high medieval period.

        Perhaps, but Bruce mentions the famous British universities (and the Royal Society) as more of a hindrance than a help in the pursuit of science in the nineteenth-century.

        Saddest of all was the scientific stupor of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Scientific chairs often went to clergymen, who regarded them as sidelines and stopgaps. Their classrooms, as well as those of genuine scientists, were nearly empty or deserted by the mid-1840s….

        During the forties, German university ways began to show up in London’s Royal College of Chemistry, University College, and King’s College. By the fifties, even Oxford and Cambridge had begun admitting the sciences as peers to the classics. All this had the backing of Prince Albert, Victoria’s German consort. But continental science moved faster. Smugness, insularity, laissez-faire and sectarian cross-hauling left England further behind when Albert died in 1861 than it had been a decade earlier.

        So how did the English still manage to be home to so many scientific giants in the nineteenth century? Bruce speculates:

        The English were regarded as self-financed individualists. The originality of genius in England thus had freer rein but less fodder, so that if often started insights to which other nations gave chase. For the great majority of English scientists, however, individualism merely reinforced the Baconian approach, the feeling that only the pressure of myriad discrete facts could warrant a hypothesis, just as English economists felt that only the pressure of innumerable individual decisions could properly govern the economy, The most typical English scientist was thought to be a fact-hunting amateur, buoyed up by a Baconian faith in the importance of his gamebag. So, at any rate, ran the consensus.

        When I read that description of the typical English scientist of the period, it only deepens the mystery of why more highly intelligent American men with a scientific inclination didn’t follow a similar path to scientific greatness.

        • ursiform says:

          The Nobel Prize was supposed to be for a discovery in the prior year …

        • syonredux says:

          “When I read that description of the typical English scientist of the period, it only deepens the mystery of why more highly intelligent American men with a scientific inclination didn’t follow a similar path to scientific greatness.”

          As I keep on saying, the prevailing American ethos was against it. Who was the scientific hero of 19th century America,Josiah Willard Gibbs or Edison? Gibbs was an obscure figure, appreciated only by a learned few, whereas Edison was a titanic figure, the nation’s beau ideal.

    • syonredux says:

      As others have pointed out, a lot of this has to do with the American concentration on technology in the 19th-early 20th century

      Telegraph: Morse-Vail (independently invented slightly after Wheatstone)

      Phonograph: Edison

      Quadruplex telegraph: Edison

      Fluoroscope: Edison

      Industrial Laboratory: Edison

      Airplane: Wright Bros

      Electrical Relay: Joseph Henry

      etc, etc

      • Syonredux,

        As others have pointed out, a lot of this has to do with the American concentration on technology in the 19th-early 20th century

        You make it seem as if there is an obvious tradeoff between technology and science, as if a large, wealthy country has to make a decision between pursuing one or the other.

        The U.S. in the nineteenth century wasn’t contemporary Singapore. It wasn’t forced into a choice where it had to decide whether its men would be practical and commercial or pursue science for science’s sake. (And in a sprawling Republic of forty million mostly free men, how does that work exactly?)

        The U.S. certainly hasn’t been forced to make such a choice since the early twentieth century – advances in science and technology have marched hand in hand. Neither were most of the large European states in the nineteenth century force to make such a choice. The nineteenth-century Germans, French, and English were inventors and scientists.

        One can argue that the development of the West soaked up all of the attention and energy of America’s best and brightest in the 19th century, but then why wasn’t that also true for the British and French colonial empires?

        • syonredux says:

          “You make it seem as if there is an obvious tradeoff between technology and science, as if a large, wealthy country has to make a decision between pursuing one or the other.”

          No. I’m just noting that American science emphasized technology over theory during most of the 19th century. There are lots of possible explanations for this (colonial lag, an over-emphasis on capitalism was a way of life, the urge to be practical in all things, etc).

          • syonredux says:

            “You make it seem as if there is an obvious tradeoff between technology and science, as if a large, wealthy country has to make a decision between pursuing one or the other.”

            No. I’m just noting that American science emphasized technology over theory during most of the 19th century. There are lots of possible explanations for this (colonial lag, an over-emphasis on capitalism as a way of life, the urge to be practical in all things, etc).

            Corrected a typo

          • Syonredux,

            Read the description I transcribed from Robert Bruce’s The Launching of Modern American Science, 1846-1876 about what the typical English scientist was like, and explain to me why more intelligent American men with a scientific inclination couldn’t follow a similar path by being “self-financed individualists.”

            Hell, we didn’t even need to follow the English, as we had homegrown examples like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson we could follow. Both men were “self-financed individualists” who became notable figures in science – Franklin with electricity and Jefferson with natural history. Some of the most important American paleontologists in the 19th century were also self-made men who decided they would rather spend their later years chasing down fossils.

            If men in England could do it, why couldn’t men in the U.S.? There were certainly no lack of fortunes.

            • syonredux says:

              “and explain to me why more intelligent American men with a scientific inclination couldn’t follow a similar path by being “self-financed individualists.””

              I don’t recall citing lack of money as a key factor in the dearth of American theoreticians in the 19th century. The reasons that I cited (colonial lag, an over-emphasis on capitalism and practicality) were cultural in nature.

              “Hell, we didn’t even need to follow the English, as we had homegrown examples like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson we could follow. Both men were “self-financed individualists” who became notable figures in science – Franklin with electricity and Jefferson with natural history.”

              Even Franklin was always looking for ways to put his experiments to practical use. Hence, his joy in inventing the lightning rod.

              As for Jefferson, I’m not sure that I can really count him as a significant figure in natural history.

              • gcochran9 says:

                Jefferson was a decent inventor. See cryptography.

              • Syonredux,

                I don’t recall citing lack of money as a key factor in the dearth of American theoreticians in the 19th century. The reasons that I cited (colonial lag, an over-emphasis on capitalism and practicality) were cultural in nature.

                But American culture emphasized individualism as much as, if not more than, English culture. In short, there should have been plenty of cultural room for 19th-century American individuals interested in science to set up their own shops and practice it once they had the funds, either as part of their patrimony (Jefferson, Darwin, Galton) or because of their own success (Franklin).

                The English example shows you still didn’t need the university in the 19th century in order to showcase scientific talent of the highest order. The English at the time were falling further behind the Germans, but they were still far in front of Americans.

                As for Jefferson, I’m not sure that I can really count him as a significant figure in natural history.

                I called Jefferson “notable,” not significant. And given that he took on the greatest and most famous natural historian of his time and bested him in a fair fight based on the scientific facts, I would say he earned it.

              • syonredux says:

                “But American culture emphasized individualism as much as, if not more than, English culture. In short, there should have been plenty of cultural room for 19th-century American individuals interested in science to set up their own shops and practice it once they had the funds, either as part of their patrimony (Jefferson, Darwin, Galton) or because of their own success (Franklin).”

                Yeah, but, as I pointed out earlier, the American scientific ethos emphasized practical objectives. So, Edison makes a pile off things like the quadruplex telegraph and phonograph. What does he do? Does he set up a facility dedicated to purely theoretical research? No, he creates the prototype for the modern industrial lab.

                So, yes, there were plenty of mavericks out there, but they operated as mavericks within the prevailing ideological norms of 19th century American science.

              • syonredux says:

                “I called Jefferson “notable,” not significant. And given that he took on the greatest and most famous natural historian of his time and bested him in a fair fight based on the scientific facts, I would say he earned it.”

                Yeah, he did refute Buffon’s notions regarding New World degeneration.

      • Jim says:

        There were a lot of early telegraphic systems. Wikipedia says the idea was first suggested in 1753 in Scotland. Although not mentioned in Wikipedia I recall reading somewhere about a Frenchman named Le Bel who constructed a crude telegraphic device about 1760. Electrical signals transmitted from the sender operated a wheel with a pointer at the receiving end which pointed in succession to the letters of the message. The Wheatstone and Morse-Vail systems were developed in 1837. Gauss was using a telegraphic system in 1833 to communicated with the Goettingen Observatory.

    • syonredux says:

      Yet despite all these advantages, the United States contributed very little to the store of scientific knowledge until around WW2.”

      Well, that depends on how you define “very little.” After all, prior to 1939, the USA did produce Hubble, Thomas Hunt Morgan (ranked 5th in the biology category in Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT), George Ellery Hale, Albert Michelson, Robert A. Millikan,Arthur Holly Compton , Carl David Anderson, Linus Pauling, Irving Langmuir, Harold Urey, Sewall Wright, etc, etc,

      • gcochran9 says:

        Gibbs was the best.

      • Syonredux,

        Well, I did say, “around WW2″ If, like A Karlin, you prefer the demarcation point be made at 1930 rather than, say, 1950, I’m not going to argue with you.

        In any case, my point is not controversial. Prominent American scientists throughout the period I’m talking about largely agreed with their European counterparts that the U.S. trailed Europe in scientific excellence, and often trailed it by a huge margin. So this wasn’t just a matter of European bigotry directed at the arriviste across the pond.

        • syonredux says:

          “Well, I did say, “around WW2″ If, like A Karlin, you prefer the demarcation point be made at 1930 rather than, say, 1950, I’m not going to argue with you.”

          I’d put the demarcation point in the 1920s. That’s when American scientific journals started to be routinely read in Europe.

          And, of course, one must also be aware of important pre-1920s figures: Thomas Hunt Morgan, Gibbs, etc.

          “In any case, my point is not controversial. Prominent American scientists throughout the period I’m talking about largely agreed with their European counterparts that the U.S. trailed Europe in scientific excellence, and often trailed it by a huge margin.”

          Dunno about the USA trailing European countries by a “huge margin” during the period 1920-45.

          Certainly,barring the important field of technology, the USA did trail Europe by a wide margin in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

      • Jim says:

        There were outstanding mathematicians like Alexander, Morse, Whitney, George Birkhoff, etc. (I’m not sure if we can take credit for Lefschetz who was born in Russia but emigrated to the US at the age of 21.) However it is clear that particularly in proportion to population the Europeans were way ahead. However when the first Fields Medal was awarded in 1936 an American Jesse Douglas was one of the recipients. the other was Ahlfors.

        • syonredux says:

          “There were outstanding mathematicians like Alexander, Morse, Whitney, George Birkhoff, etc.”

          Benjamin Peirce is usually regarded as the first significant American mathematician

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

          • Jim says:

            I was speaking of the early part of the twentieth century before the flood of refugees from Europe came in the 1930’s. Pierce is mainly remembered today for the fact that a product decomposition of a ring corresponds to a system of pairwise orthogonal idempotents adding up to the identity. This is still called a Pierce decomposition or system of idempotents. More generally product decompositions in general are related to idempotents. For example a product decomposition of abelian groups corresponds to certain idempotents in the endomorphism ring of the group.

        • Jim says:

          Considering people like Alexander, Whitney, Morse, Lefschetz it seems that early twentieth century American mathematicians did pretty good in topology and differential topology.

    • syonredux says:

      “but the English still had Faraday and Joule in physics, Babbage and Sylvester in math, Adams and John Herschel in astronomy, Hooker and Darwin in biology, and Lyell and Murchison in geology.”

      Well, English and Scots (Murchison and Lyell were both Scots)

      So, circa 1846, I suppose the leading American figures (leaving to one side technologists like Morse) would be Joseph Henry (physics), Asa Gray (botany), Matthew Fontaine Maury (Earth Sciences-he was a pioneer in the field of oceanography), and Benjamin Peirce (mathematics-his son was the famous logician Charles Sanders Peirce).

      Since Agassiz was around 40 before he came to America, I excluded him from consideration.

    • akarlin says:

      By the way, regarding the US/Europe technological-scientific “dichotomy”:

      By World War I, Germany had left the rest of the world far behind
      in modern chemistry—so far behind that even the confiscation of
      German industrial patents during that war did not immediately
      benefit competitors overseas. The biggest American firms, with the
      best American chemical engineers, did not know what to do with
      them or how to make them work. So in the twenties, they hired
      away German chemists. Industrial espionage back in the saddle.
      – from David Landes’ The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

      I also recall from there that Germany was ahead of both Britain and the US in the newest industries, not just in organic chemicals (as per above) but in electricity and internal combustion technologies. And of course one could add that after 1920, when rocketry began to dawn, it would be an almost entirely German specialty until 1945.

      So average technological levels across modern industries – at least in Germany – were higher than in the US by 1920.

      Of course this also makes the well known German economic output lag – both Imperial and Weimar Germany’s GDP per capita was only around 70% of that of Great Britain and the US – all the more puzzling.

      • Yes, I’m glad you brought this up. It reminds me that the dichotomy I’ve introduced between Europe and the U.S. (because my focus was on the U.S.) was not a dichotomy at all, even in the 19th century. The British and French both clearly trailed the Germans in many important scientific areas. In fact, the British mathematician Charles Babbage wrote an essay in the first half of the nineteen century complaining about the decline of science in Britain.

        Here are some relevant quotes from Babbage on the topic. A couple of them read as if they are coming from Syonredux talking about American culture.

        That a country, [England], eminently distinguished for its mechanical and manufacturing ingenuity, should be indifferent to the progress of inquiries which form the highest departments of that knowledge on whose more elementary truths its wealth and rank depend, is a fact which is well deserving the attention of those who shall inquire into the causes that influence the progress of nations.

        Science in England is not a profession: its cultivators are scarcely recognised even as a class. Our language itself contains no single term by which their occupation can be expressed. We borrow a foreign word [Savant] from another country whose high ambition it is to advance science, and whose deeper policy, in accord with more generous feelings, gives to the intellectual labourer reward and honour, in return for services which crown the nation with imperishable renown, and ultimately enrich the human race.

        Unless there exist peculiar institutions for the support of such inquirers, or unless the Government directly interfere, the contriver of a thaumatrope may derive profit from his ingenuity, whilst he who unravels the laws of light and vision, on which multitudes of phenomena depend, shall descend unrewarded to the tomb.

        So much for the idea that England’s scientific culture in the 19th century was all that different from America’s scientific culture.

        • syonredux says:

          “So much for the idea that England’s scientific culture in the 19th century was all that different from America’s scientific culture.”

          As I said elsewhere, American science was like its British progenitor, only more so.

      • syonredux says:

        “And of course one could add that after 1920, when rocketry began to dawn, it would be an almost entirely German specialty until 1945.”

        Well, barring the significant contributions of Robert Goddard, of course…..It’s interesting to speculate what might have happened had the US military establishment been a little more far-sighted in terms of rocketry in the 1920s.

        RE: Germany and chemistry,

        “IG Farben was a German chemical industry conglomerate. Its name is taken from Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AktienGesellschaft (Plc Syndicate [literally, “community of interests”] of dye-making corporations). The company was formed in 1925 from a number of major chemical companies that had been working together closely since World War I. During its heyday, IG Farben was the largest chemical company in the world and the fourth largest overall industrial concern, after General Motors, U.S. Steel, and Standard Oil of New Jersey.
        IG Farben scientists made fundamental contributions to all areas of chemistry. Otto Bayer discovered the polyaddition for the synthesis of polyurethane in 1937. Several IG Farben scientists were awarded Nobel Prizes. Carl Bosch and Friedrich Bergius were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1931 “in recognition of their contributions to the invention and development of chemical high pressure methods”. Gerhard Domagk was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1939 “for the discovery of the antibacterial effects of prontosil”. Kurt Alder was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1950 for his “discovery and development of the diene synthesis”.
        Following the Nazi takeover of Germany, the company became embroiled in the Nazi regime’s policies as a large government contractor. In 1951, IG Farben was split into its four largest original constituent companies, which remain some of the world’s largest chemical and pharmaceutical companies. The current main successor companies are AGFA, BASF, Bayer and Sanofi.”

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

      • Frau Katze says:

        In 1856 the Englishman William Perkin accidentally discovered the first coal tar dye: a shade of mauve. . He succeeded in building a place to produce this dye (his father gave him financial help) and he succeeded in this venture, but that was it for England and dyes.

        This discovery was huge.

        But where were all the (eventual) big companies that systemically went through all the permutations and discover all the other colours, plus get started on the study organic chemistry…where were they? Not in England, but in Germany. I think the French and Swiss had dye companies too.

        I was puzzled about this when I read a biography of Perkin. I got the impression that the UK government was strictly capitalist. It was not the place of the govt to fund work on something like this. So Perkin had his company and that was it. The German govt I believe funded research. Germany roared ahead in organic chemistry.

        Alexander Fleming’s discovery about a mold that killed bacteria went nowhere. It was just an interesting oddity. No govt funding for that either.

        I got the impression that here Europe was benefitting from having multiple countries with slightly different govt policies. Perkin’s father was a successful merchant who could let Perkin (an 18 year old) study chemistry in some kind of paid arrangement. England had the flexibility to let merchants become wealthy enough to do this. Perkin ran into no govt opposition in building his dye plant.

        The German govt was more rigid. Perhaps an 18 year old in an irregular tutoring situation could not have made the discovery and take it successfully to market in Germany.

        But once it was clear that there was a source of these dyes, after the basics, then the Germam govt would pour in help and funding to get it going.

        Net result: Europe as a whole benefitted from these slightly different emphases by their govts. Part of the problem with a huge place like China is that such a situation couldn’t exist because there was only one govt.

        Worth noting: Columbus first approached Portugal for funding his westward voyage. They turned him down, correctly stating that known size of the earth was too large.

        He then went to Spain, where they were willing to let him give it a try.

      • Danny says:

        Are you sure there was such a lag?
        It may be a problem of measuring GDP or exchange rate abnormalities.

        Regarding Weimar it’s probably true, due to Versailles, etc.
        When the NSDAP gained power in the 1930s there was a giant economic catchup, unemployment rate went from about 40% to almost Zero within a few years, so it seems much of industrial capital lay dormant before.

        However that wouldn’t explain an output lag before WW1.

        Another possible reason is that Germany (like Japan) has a history of favoring buildup of industrial capital over consumption (and thus production of consumer goods). Science is a kind of capital good that is nor usually priced or pricable especially is it stays within a company. Over time of course it would pay of in measurable higher output, maybe that time explains the lag.

        • akarlin says:

          Angus Maddison data: Germany, UK, USA GDP per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars – i.e., adjusts for exchange rate effects)

          1870 – $1839, $3190, $2445
          1900 – $2985, $4492, $4091
          1914 – $3648, $4921, $5301
          1920 – $2796, $4548, $5552
          1929 – $4051, $5503, $6899
          1939 – $5406, $6262, $6561

          Germany was consistently behind the Anglo-Saxons, even at the height of prewar Nazi resource mobilization.

          Wartime economic growth in the Nazi German economy was very low relative to that of Britain and especially the United States (who would conduct their own, more efficient economic mobilizations in 1939-1942 and 1942-44, respectively), even before bombing began to take a significant toll.

          • JoachimStrobel says:

            Thanks a lot for these numbers, I was looking for those in a recent discussion. Plus, the economic improvement after 1933 was based on printed money, aiming at war to erase all debts.
            I believe the German school system is the root cause of its technology advances in the late 1900s. Unless France and GB, there was hardly any social hirachy barrier preventing teachers to select the brightest 1 or 2 boys from each basic school for higher education. This was in particular fruitful within the region that is today Baden-Württenberg and laid the foundation to its industry.

      • Boris Bartlog says:

        At that time it was probably still fairly important to per capita GDP to have a lot of natural resources at hand to complement the other factors of production. Germany had neither the colonial reach of Britain nor the sprawling expanse of the USA.

  31. Jim says:

    Perhaps American culture did not encourage pure science and mathematics. When Henri Poincare visited the US in the late nineteenth century he asked some US government officials that he would like to meet with the mathematician Hill who was employed in a minor US government post. Hill’s superiors were quite surprised that their employee even published mathematical research let alone that someone like Poincare was quite interested in it.

    I think Americans did much better in the late 19th century in technology. There was an optical company in America at that time which made some of the best astronomical telescopes in the world. An American is credited with developing the first electric motor which was really very useful.

    • gcochran9 says:

      sewing machine. combine harvester, milling machine, steam shovel, electrical relay, circuit breaker, vulcanized rubber, artificial refrigeration, anesthesia, rotary printing press, jackhammer, safety pin, egg beater, Mason jar, pencil eraser, escalator, vacuum cleaner, jelly beans, machine gun, socket wrench, paper clip, barbed wire, water-tube boiler, pipe wrench, earmuffs, spork, mimeograph, phonograph, carbon microphone, cash register, bolometer, electric chair, electric fan, solar cell (selenium), thermostat, skyscraper, photographic film, slot machine, induction motor, drinking straw, ballpoint pen, Ferris wheel, Dow process for bromine extraction from brine, spectroheliograph, tapered roller bearings, ice cream scoop, filing cabinet, thumbtack

      Zipper.

    • Jim,

      Perhaps American culture did not encourage pure science and mathematics.

      It didn’t encourage any scientific endeavor that lacked immediate practical/commercial benefits.

      The exceptions were men like Louis Agassiz and the astronomer Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel who through the power of their personalities gave well-attended public lectures about their scientific subjects, even though there was little of immediate benefit any in the public got from attending them.

      The focus of nineteenth-century America on practical aims has a modern analogy. Consider that three of the top four countries in the world for patent grants are in East Asia – Japan is #1, China #3 (behind the United States), and South Korea #4. Yet few people today consider this to be indicative of scientific accomplishment – and neither did the men of science in the nineteenth century consider America’s “clever tinkerers” to be engaged in scientific work.

      What’s surprising is that this situation went on for many decades, despite many American scientists who viewed it as a serious problem. Josiah Williard Gibbs worked at Yale teaching physics without a salary for nine years before the publication of his monumental work on thermodynamics forced the university’s hands in giving him a small stipend. He could only do that for so long because he was independently wealthy.

      Here is how Bruce describes the state of physics in the U.S. at the end of the period he surveys:

      Though the physicist Joseph Henry was still the dean of American science, American physics in 1876 ranked low against that of other nations. Few colleges adequately prepared their students for graduate study in that field. Teaching labs in physics remained a novelty. At Harvard that year, no physics course drew more than twelve students, though a sophomore chemistry course attracted over a hundred. Fewer than seventy-five Americans called themselves physicists [out of a national population of 50 million Americans, including 43 million white Americans], and only about twenty published regularly. What work they did was mostly in the Baconian tradition, experimental rather than theoretical, with much emphasis on meteorology and geophysics. Weakness in mathematics made that bias difficult to right. American physicists shared with the British an inclination to explain things on the basis of mechanical models. Some American physicists, in fact, went in for technology as a sideline. Industry, however, had no jobs for them as physicists.

      When you read about how long Americans struggled to put themselves near the forefront of world science, despite being a wealthy country with a culture predisposed to look toward Europe for examples, is it any surprise that East Asia has struggled despite having none of those advantages?

      • syonredux says:

        “Gibbs was highly esteemed by his friends, but American science was too preoccupied with practical questions to make much use of his profound theoretical work during his lifetime. He lived out his quiet life at Yale, deeply admired by a few able students but making no immediate impress on American science commensurate with his genius.”
        — J. G. Crowther, 1937

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs#Scientific_recognition

      • syonredux says:

        ” [out of a national population of 50 million Americans, including 43 million white Americans], ”

        Also useful to note the fact that the American South contributed very little up to 1950.For example, Murray notes how New England plus New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania produced 184 eminent figures in the arts and the sciences by 1950. In contrast, the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

        And if anyone wants to bring up population levels as a way to explain the stark disparity, it’s not going to account for all of it:

        1850

        Northeast: 8.5 million

        South: 5.6 million Whites

        1900:

        Northeast: 20.6 M

        South: 12.1 M Whites

        1950:

        Northeast: 37.4 M

        South: 36.9 M Whites

        • Yes, looking at regional differences in the U.S. is another way of thinking about my original question: When you study just those parts the world where the mean IQ ranges from, say, 97 to 103, which is about from Spain to China, you still see a tremendous amount of variation in scientific accomplishment, and often in ways where mean IQ breaks down as the best explanatory factor.

          That does not mean I think IQ doesn’t matter or isn’t critically important to a group’s scientific success. Anyone who honestly thinks that obviously doesn’t believe their own lying eyes. But it’s also not always sufficient. Other human characteristics (besides IQ), culture, and incentives matter.

          • syonredux says:

            Havelock Ellis on the distribution of British genius:

            “I find that 76.8 per cent, of eminent British men and women are English, 15 per cent. Scotch, 5.3 per cent. Irish and 2.9 per cent. Welsh. The proportion of English is very large, but if we take the present population as a basis of estimation it fairly corresponds to England’s share; this is not so, however, as regards the other parts of the United Kingdom; Wales, and especially Ireland, have too few people of genius, while Scotland has produced decidedly more than her share.[2] If we consider separately the eminent persons in whose ancestry two or more of the elements of British nationality (English, Welsh, Scotch and Irish) are mixed we find that the English proportion is only 51 per cent., the Scotch 16.8, while the Irish element has risen to equality with the Scotch, 16.8, and the Welsh is as high as 15.4. This would seem to indicate that the Irish and the Welsh are especially adapted for cross-breeding in the production of genius.”

            “While British genius is thus spread in a fairly impartial manner over the British Islands, and while all the chief physical types appear to have contributed men of genius, there are yet certain districts which have been peculiarly prolific in intellectual ability. In England there are two such centers, the most important being in Norfolk and Suffolk, and to some extent the adjoining counties; Norfolk stands easily at the head of British counties in the production of genius.f The other English center is in Devonshire and Somerset. In Scotland a belt running from Aberdeen through Forfar, Fife, the country round Edin- burgh, Lanark (including Glasgow), Ayr and Dumfries is especially rich in genius. In Ireland the chief center (if we leave Dublin out of consid- eration) is in the southeastern group of counties: Kilkenny, Tipperary, Waterford and Cork; there is a less important north-eastern center in Antrim and Down.”

            https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_58/March_1901

        • syonredux says:

          Henry Cabot Lodge seems to have been the first person to conduct a scientific survey of the North vs South gap:

          “By the table showing the distribution according
          to States (Table C) it will be seen, as
          might be expected, that the oldest communities
          with the largest white population have been
          most prolific in ability of all kinds. At the same
          time this rule is by no means absolute in its
          application. In Virginia, Massachusetts, and
          Connecticut the percentage of ability in proportion
          to the total white population is higher
          than in the two other leading States, New York
          and Pennsylvania. In proportion to its population,
          Connecticut leads every other State in
          the total amount of ability. In the matter of
          groups, not only the absolute amount of ability
          but the percentage in proportion to population
          is higher in the New England and Middle
          States than in those of the South and West,
          outside Maryland and Virginia.”

          “Even more interesting than the percentages
          shown by the totals is the distribution by
          occupation. There are eighteen departments
          enumerated in which distinction has been
          achieved. New York leads in eight: soldiers,
          lawyers, artists, navy, business, engineers, architects,
          and actors. Massachusetts leads in eight
          also: clergy, physicians, literature, science, educators,
          philanthropy, inventors, and musicians;
          while Virginia leads in the remaining two :
          statesmen and pioneers.”

          “This table also shows that the production
          of ability has been remarkably concentrated,
          and has been confined, on the whole, to comparatively
          few States. A few comparisons will
          prove this. Two States, Massachusetts and
          New York, have furnished more than a third
          of the abihty of the entire country. Three,
          Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania,
          have supplied almost exactly one-half, and five,
          Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut,
          and Virginia, have produced twothirds
          of the total amount. In the arrangement
          by groups, we find that the New England group
          and that formed of the four Middle States must
          each be credited with more than a third of all
          the ability produced. The six New England
          and the four Middle States furnish together
          almost exactly three-quarters of the abihty of
          the country. If Virginia be omitted, it also
          appears that Massachusetts alone has furnished
          a little more and New York alone a trifle less
          ability than all the Southern and Western
          States together—that is, than twenty States
          and the District of Columbia. In the Western
          States the wide difference which exists is owing,
          of course, in large measure to their very recent
          settlement, for which proper allowance must
          be made in drawing any deductions from the
          figures given in the tables.”

          “If we turn now from the distribution by totals
          and examine that by professions, we find that
          while the Southern and Southwestern States,
          including Virginia and Maryland, are comparatively
          strong in statesmen, soldiers, and
          pioneers, and in a less degree in lawyers, they
          are weak in all other classes. The ability of
          the South, less in amount than that of the
          New England and Middle States, was confined
          to three or four departments. In other
          words, there was in the South but little variety
          of intellectual activity. In the Middle States
          and New England ability sought every channel
          for expression, and was displayed in various
          ways”

          “But almost all
          the literature, art, science, business, philanthropy,
          and music; almost all the physicians,
          educators, inventors, engineers, architects, and
          actors were produced by the Middle and New
          England States.”

          Interestingly, Lodge blames slavery for the South’s low levels of achievement:

          “No finer people ever existed
          than those who settled and built up our Southern
          States, but when slavery became, in the
          course of the world’s progress, and in a free
          country, nothing less than a hideous anomaly,
          it warped the community in which it flourished,
          limited the range of intellectual activity,
          dwarfed ability, and retarded terribly the advance
          of civilization. It is wonderful that the
          people who labored beneath the burden of a
          slave system achieved as much as they did, and
          the mass of ability which they produced under
          such adverse conditions is a striking proof of
          the strength of the race. The effects of slavery
          are painfully apparent in these tables, and only
          time will enable the people who suffered by
          the evil system to recover from them.”

          https://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1891sep-00687

  32. Irving says:

    Also, isn’t India’s IQ scores lower than what the map above says it is, given their PISA scores?

  33. st says:

    “The exceptions, such as they are, seem to be a result of strong population substructure”.

    There is something screaming out of the map of the world Cochran posted.
    In the map, colours are not randomly distributed. What screams from the map is that the specie of HS have a strong population substructure. My eyes must be lying.

    Wonder what will happen when the substructures disappear. What will the colour of the map be like? All red? All blue? All uniformly light yellow as it is now in Algeria or Libya? Could either Algeria or Libya maintain or support technological civilization, if left on their own?(not talking about progressing it, only to support what’s already there). But if they could, why would they? What colour of the map does it take to support things like human rights, feminism, gender equality, market economy, transsexuality, separation of the religion from the state or independence of the legislative power from the executive power? Can we find any of these in the light yellow area?

  34. Dale says:

    The problem has some subtleties. What is said in public is never just the actual truth, it’s a political act. “The mind is not a device for perceiving reality, but a device for survival and reproduction.” In this case, what difference does it make if, e.g., Ethiopia has low enough IQs that it’s going to cramp economic development? Nobody’s going to give up on figuring out how to develop Ethiopia. People have every reason to ignore the IQ difference until that fact can somehow be exploited to obtain a better outcome.

    A while back I read an article which said that a Chinese company had built a factory in Ethiopia to assemble shoes. It said that the low productivity of the workers was not a problem — their pay could be low enough to compensate. The problem was the quality of the road between the factory and the port. But in the long run, Ethiopia is going to get significantly richer if only by doing very low paid factory work. It will be interesting to see if that affects the measured IQs, and if so, by what mechanism. Given how desperately poor Ethiopia is now, any effects of wealth on IQ should be strongly manifested.

    • gcochran9 says:

      “People have every reason to ignore the IQ difference until that fact can somehow be exploited to obtain a better outcome.”

      That would be now. You get a better outcome if you don’t spend big money on things that don’t work. Refraining from pounding falsehoods into every susceptible head – most of them – might have other benefits.

      • IC says:

        It follows the rule of survival of the fittest.

        Low skilled workers work for less – fit. Low skilled workers want high pay as highly skilled workers – unfit, which would invite automation/ machine to replacing low skilled jobs.

        For business people, there is no permanent loyalty only permanent interest – very Darwinian principle. Any policy/ideology/religion against biological nature would be doomed to failure at end.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        There is a striking similarity between public schools and “pray the gay away” camps, in every respect but public perception.

        People want to believe that they can “pray the stupid away” with hard labour and colourful rituals in ever-lengthening periods of public schooling.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        “Ethiopia is going to get significantly richer if only by doing very low paid factory work.”
        I’d be willing to wager that this doesn’t happen, for lots of reasons.

        “Nobody’s going to give up on figuring out how to develop Ethiopia.”
        Of course not, but it certainly gives you a leg up to understand why they are underdeveloped. Both Ethiopia 2016 and China 1980 were underdeveloped, but for very different reasons, and obviously, different strategies are required.

        The number of people who think that willful ignorance on a sensitive topic is somehow beneficial nver ceases to amaze me.

      • st says:

        “pounding falsehoods into every susceptible head”. True, but why they would do that? And who are “they” that are “pounding falsehoods into every susceptible head”? Are they the Political Left via their proxies in the universities and the academics, that reproduce their world-views in the heads of the future educators, which reproduce their world views in the susceptible heads of the pupils? Wait, whose head is not susceptible at the age of, say, nine?
        But why and how political left is entirely in charge of the educational centers of the West? Why is political right not represented in the academia? (I knew of US professor in political science, who applied for a job in an IV league-member graduate school; he hid his political preferences in his application; he took the job, but later on (in 2003) it was discovered that he was a volunteer at state reserve guard, which was enough to define his political views – he got fired immediately. The dean who hired him was also fired for not having checked if his applicant has been a volunteer in any state entity which might look suspicious (say protecting the borders) in the eyes of the academic left. But why is left in total control of the academia?
        “From an intellectual viewpoint, however, the political right is not as competitive as the left. We are not strong in the media, in think tanks, in universities and in schools, where the coming generations are educated. This battle was lost by our parents.” – V. Orban. The entire interview: http://hungarytoday.hu/news/viktor-orban-defender-europe-swiss-weeklys-interview-hungarian-leader-full-50008

      • Dale says:

        You write, “You get a better outcome if you don’t spend big money on things that don’t work.”

        I’m curious, what “things that don’t work” should (whoever) stop spending money on?

  35. Danny says:

    People may know about IQ differences and even act on that knowledge, but not express it verbally.

    I think there are two ways thinkable how that happens:

    They have another word/concept that fills in for IQ. That concept would not need to be fully coextensive with IQ; it should be enough if it is useful enough, so that they would not derive significant benefit from adopting the real deal.
    They don’t know about IQ consciously. So that would mean that they are unable to reason symbolically about IQ, but that may not need to be a huge disadvantage in using it. Reasoning about ability may be basic enough to have its own neural structures, i.e. like we don’t need to reason symbolically to construct our visual field.

    While it’s true that it’s not very useful for society to do certain things over and over again that must not be true for the persons concerned with deciding or implementing these things. In theory, not knowing consciously about IQ could even be an adaption to western democracy.

  36. Syonredux,

    Yeah, but, as I pointed out earlier, the American scientific ethos emphasized practical objectives. So, Edison makes a pile off things like the quadruplex telegraph and phonograph. What does he do? Does he set up a facility dedicated to purely theoretical research? No, he creates the prototype for the modern industrial lab.

    Yes, but not every man with an inclination toward science goes in for technology or practical objectives. Gibbs certainly did not. The man taught at Yale for nine years without a salary !

    Do you think if Charles Darwin had been born in the United States, he would have gone to work for some early American corporation? How about William Hooker?

    Or how about a 19th-century American Carl Gauss (if one even existed)? What was he likely to do? Hard to believe it would be something done solely for practical aims or commercial purposes.

    And in fact we do not need to speculate about these possibilities. Some 19th-century Americans interested in science did NOT put their energies into practical research or commercial enterprises. Look at the two American paleontologists responsible for the Bone Wars, for example. They both came from families of modest wealth, which allowed them to pursue their careers despite family objections and worries. Cope’s paleontological interest was probably a net drain on his family’s wealth, but a net plus for science.

    So, yes, there were plenty of mavericks out there, but they operated as mavericks within the prevailing ideological norms of 19th century American science.

    But mavericks don’t operate according to ideological norms. Besides, were English ideological norms terribly different from American ideological norms? It’s not as if the 19th-century English were uninterested in commercial pursuits or practical inventions.

    You seem to be arguing that it would have been impossible for a Carl Gauss or Charles Darwin to be Carl Gauss and Charles Darwin in the 19th-century United States.

    • syonredux says:

      “You seem to be arguing that it would have been impossible for a Carl Gauss or Charles Darwin to be Carl Gauss and Charles Darwin in the 19th-century United States.”

      Hardly impossible, just much more difficult.

      “Yes, but not every man with an inclination toward science goes in for technology or practical objectives. Gibbs certainly did not. The man taught at Yale for nine years without a salary !”

      Which indicates the pressures that he was under. Proof for my side of the argument, I should think.

      “Do you think if Charles Darwin had been born in the United States, he would have gone to work for some early American corporation? How about William Hooker?”

      Who knows? I suspect that Hooker would have had a quite similar career in the USA (cf Asa Gray, the greatest American botanist of the 19th century).

      “And in fact we do not need to speculate about these possibilities. Some 19th-century Americans interested in science did NOT put their energies into practical research or commercial enterprises.”

      Yes, and people like Benjamin Peirce also existed. Exceptions always exist.

      “But mavericks don’t operate according to ideological norms. Besides, were English ideological norms terribly different from American ideological norms?”

      There’s an old saying about colonies. They’re just like the original edition, only abridged and edited.So, the USA has the empirical-practical biases of British science, only to a much greater degree.

      • Syonredux,

        Hardly impossible, just much more difficult.

        I think you greatly exaggerate the difficulties. The language, the culture (even the scientific culture), and the level of wealth in the U.S. and the U.K of the nineteenth century were all very similar. And from 1850 on, the U.S. had more people than the U.K. After 1880, it had a lot more people than the U.K.

        Colleges and universities don’t explain it. British universities were moribund scientific institutions in the 19th century.

        Wealth doesn’t explain it. Americans poured a great deal of money into science in the 19th century that had no practical purpose other than to disseminate knowledge.

        I do agree that broader incentives might explain it, but since I believe quite a few highly intelligent people have always been interested in science less for commercial incentives or fame than because they have an itch to explore some area, and this seems particularly true of the greatest scientists, I still think there must be something more to it.

        • syonredux says:

          “I think you greatly exaggerate the difficulties. The language, the culture (even the scientific culture), and the level of wealth in the U.S. and the U.K of the nineteenth century were all very similar. ”

          Well, similar but different. The UK was significantly wealthier than the USA during the first half of the 19th century, for example…

          ” And from 1850 on, the U.S. had more people than the U.K. After 1880, it had a lot more people than the U.K.”

          As I pointed out elsewhere, the South massively underperformed relative to the Northeast.

          “Wealth doesn’t explain it. Americans poured a great deal of money into science in the 19th century that had no practical purpose other than to disseminate knowledge.”

          But the lauded figures were still technologists, not theoreticians.

          “I do agree that broader incentives might explain it, but since I believe quite a few highly intelligent people have always been interested in science less for commercial incentives or fame than because they have an itch to explore some area, and this seems particularly true of the greatest scientists, I still think there must be something more to it.”

          Ideology, colonial lag, a greater concern for the purely practical, ….

      • Three quotes from Babbage showing that British scientific culture in the 19th century wasn’t all that different from America’s scientific culture at the time.

        My favorite:

        “Unless there exist peculiar institutions for the support of such inquirers, or unless the Government directly interfere, the contriver of a thaumatrope may derive profit from his ingenuity, whilst he who unravels the laws of light and vision, on which multitudes of phenomena depend, shall descend unrewarded to the tomb.”

  37. Syonredux,

    You keep referring to culture and ideology as explanatory factors, but you do so in a way that suggests you’re referring to the powers and principalities of the air.

    The U.S. had only the vaguest outlines of a national ideology and culture in the mid-nineteenth century. There was no national education curriculum. Beyond a tenuously-agreed-upon political framework, which would soon break down, and a shared language, there was really not much in the way of a national culture.

    So what exactly do you mean when you refer to this national culture and ideology that was preventing American from achieving the kind of scientific greatness seen in Europe at the time? The U.S. patent system? A narrow slate of books that every intelligent man in America was reading because well-stocked libraries were still thin the ground in the country at the time? What exactly?

    • syonredux says:

      “You keep referring to culture and ideology as explanatory factors, but you do so in a way that suggests you’re referring to the powers and principalities of the air.”

      Well, ideology and culture are vague and insubstantial things, aren’t they?

      But, to be more specific:

      The somnolent South: As I’ve pointed out previously, the South punched well below its weight. Various reasons can be brought to bear. Lodge favors slavery as the chief culprit. I can point to other areas: lack of urban life (Murray is quite good on pointing out the fructifying effects of city life on intellectual accomplishment), lack of investment in education (a deficit that goes all the way back to the colonial era), etc.

      Recent Settlement: Raw townships are not exactly known for producing sterling work in the arts and the sciences. Hence, it’s not exactly surprising that the 19th century Northeast surpasses the Midwest when it comes to producing significant figures in the arts and the sciences.

      A concentration on the practical: Well, here’s what a fellow that you seem to admire has to say:

      “Though the physicist Joseph Henry was still the dean of American science, American physics in 1876 ranked low against that of other nations. Few colleges adequately prepared their students for graduate study in that field. Teaching labs in physics remained a novelty. At Harvard that year, no physics course drew more than twelve students, though a sophomore chemistry course attracted over a hundred. Fewer than seventy-five Americans called themselves physicists [out of a national population of 50 million Americans, including 43 million white Americans], and only about twenty published regularly. What work they did was mostly in the Baconian tradition, experimental rather than theoretical, with much emphasis on meteorology and geophysics. Weakness in mathematics made that bias difficult to right. American physicists shared with the British an inclination to explain things on the basis of mechanical models. Some American physicists, in fact, went in for technology as a sideline. Industry, however, had no jobs for them as physicists.”

      Given that mindset, is it at all strange that STEM-minded Americans preferred inventing things like the revolver, the telegraph, the airplane, etc, to theoretical work? Even Joseph Henry (referred to above as the “dean of American science”) did a lot of work in the area of technology (e.g., he invented the electrical relay).

      ” that was preventing American from achieving the kind of scientific greatness seen in Europe at the time?”

      Well, surely we are not comparing 19th America to the whole of Europe in the 19th century (Britain+Germany+France+The Netherlands, etc)?That would be rather unfair on numerous levels. It’s best, I think, to compare the USA to fellow Anglo countries: Britain, Australia, Canada, etc. On that point, the USA definitely trails the UK in fields like physics,mathematics, etc. On the other hand, the USA doesn’t seem to be trailing the UK when it comes to technology.

    • syonredux says:

      The career of Benjamin Peirce (April 4, 1809 – October 6, 1880) is another example of the difficulties that American theoreticians faced in the 19th century. Peirce is usually regarded as the first significant American mathematician. He invented the terms idempotent and nilpotent, introduced the Peirce decomposition, etc. Yet note what happened when he introduced the graduate-level study of mathematics at Harvard:

      “If the average student could not cope with the mathematics that Peirce was presenting them with, then he decided it was better he saw only the more talented and dedicated students continue with mathematics beyond their first year. He proposed three different tracks from which the students could make a choice. One option was a one year practical course, the second was a one year theoretical course designed primarily for school teachers, and the third option was a three year course which would train mathematicians of the future. After the Lawrence Scientific School was founded at Harvard in 1847, Peirce was able to teach graduate level mathematics for the first time in the United States. The course he set up was impressive, including the study of works of Lacroix, Cauchy, Monge, Biot, Hamilton, Laplace, Poisson, Gauss, Le Verrier, Bessel, Adams, Airy, MacCullagh and Franz Neumann. It was a truly ambition course but it was somewhat ahead of its time and he taught it to only about two students per year.”

      http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Peirce_Benjamin.html

  38. Syonredux,

    Well, ideology and culture are vague and insubstantial things, aren’t they?

    No, they are neither vague nor insubstantial. But they should be defined concretely, and not just with a wave of the hand.

    Culture and ideology are the ready-made excuses many people have for explaining why black Americans perform poorly in school, why Argentina doesn’t do as well as Australia, why the Middle East lags Europe in development.

    I happen to believe that culture does explain some differences we see in the world, but rather than fall upon that explanation as a first resort to establishing an argument, as most people do, I think you need to prove it. And you do that not by vaguely referring to an American “ethos” or “ideology” as if it’s axiomatic. You do it by explaining how such an ethos or ideology came to dominate so universally in a country – and only in that country – that even America’s greatest minds were swayed by it. What were the incentives, the traditions, and the primary way such ideas were disseminated around the country in the 19th century?

    And then, finally, you need to do all that while keeping in mind that for this specific discussion we are comparing the U.S. to the U.K. in the 19th century – two countries which shared much in common in ideas, culture, and traditions. So your argument has to have a fine granular quality to it because you are trying to show distinctions between two places which were pretty similar in many ways – at least when comparing countries.

    A concentration on the practical: Well, here’s what a fellow that you seem to admire has to say:

    But everything Bruce says in that excerpt was also true of the U.K.

    British universities, for example, were not cutting-edge institutions in the 19th century. They were moribund places where science went to die.

    And Bruce also makes clear that British scientists worked in that same Baconian tradition he complains about in American scientific thought.

    Yet Britain’s greatest scientists in the 19th century were incomparably more valuable than America’s greatest scientists.

    Well, surely we are not comparing 19th America to the whole of Europe in the 19th century (Britain+Germany+France+The Netherlands, etc)?

    No, if you follow the discussion back, you’ll see that our specific conversation had moved on to compare just the U.S. and the U.K. As bad as English science might have been to Babbage in 1830, it was still better than what America would produce in the 19th-century.

    The question is, why? You claim it was culture and ideology. But your claim is very vague.

    Was it American’s strong patent system, for example, which rewarded American inventors with much less fuss than was true in Europe?

    Was it the lack of imported scientific books (and the translation of major German and French scientific works) in the 19th-century United States?

    Give me something specific.

    (I do like your idea about new settlements, but it needs to be fleshed out.)

    • Greying Wanderer says:

      “we are comparing the U.S. to the U.K. in the 19th century”

      my guess would be class
      – gentry more inclined to pure science
      – rude mechanicals more inclined to engineering invention
      with UK both while maybe the US simply received a larger proportion of rude mechanicals and a smaller proportion of gentry.

      It might be interesting to tie the proportion of engineering to pure science to the source populations of the different US regions.

      e.g. mixed gentry and rude mechanicals to New England but mostly rude mechanicals elsewhere?

      #

      “culture and ideology” / “baconian tradition”

      The UK has always had a “gifted amateur” culture or in other words it was always hostile to “try hard.”

      But (h/t Jayman) where does culture come from?

      I’d say the hostility to “try hard” in Anglo culture comes from a mixture of laziness and ADD.

      This leads to another thought re two types of discovery
      – one type where a person focuses on one thing until they figure it out
      – second type where insight only comes from knowing two pieces of unrelated information

      it’s the second type where ADD kids have an advantage imo because they flit between different, often completely different subjects picking up unrelated info cos they get bored.

      #

      If correct then if it can be kept free the internet should unlock an explosion by making ADD type discovery easier.

    • syonredux says:

      “Yet Britain’s greatest scientists in the 19th century were incomparably more valuable than America’s greatest scientists.”

      Well, except in technology. America, after all, did produce people like Whitney, Morse, Edison, the Wright Bros, etc

      And I don’t think that anyone would say that Josiah Willard Gibbs was dwarfed by his British counterparts.

      “Culture and ideology are the ready-made excuses many people have for explaining why black Americans perform poorly in school, why Argentina doesn’t do as well as Australia, why the Middle East lags Europe in development.”

      A bit apples to oranges, there. In the case of, say, Blacks, we are talking about a group that does poorly in every branch of STEM. In the case of the USA, we are talking about a country that did very well in one area (technology) and fairly poorly in the others (Gibbs, of course, being the towering exception). And then we have to take into account the explosion in American science from roughly 1920 onwards: Hubble, Sewall Wright, Claude Shannon, Linus Pauling, John Bardeen, Compton,George Ellery Hale, etc

      “But everything Bruce says in that excerpt was also true of the U.K.”

      Except maybe it was truer, so to speak, of the US.After all, as I’ve repeatedly noted, the USA is an abridged and edited version of the UK. Only certain elements came over in force (the low Chuch/Dissenting tradition, republicanism,capitalism, etc). You’ve noted that German STEM was pulling ahead (in overall terms) of the UK in the 19th century. And this is frequently blamed on an anti-theoretical bias in British science at the time. From everything that I’ve read, that bias was much stronger in the US. After all, as you yourself noted, the great Gibbs was virtually ignored by American society. Edison, in contrast, was a national hero.

    • syonredux says:

      “Was it the lack of imported scientific books (and the translation of major German and French scientific works) in the 19th-century United States?”

      That might have played a role.In 1838, the British Association for the Advancement of Science established a translation committee. Gauss’ work was among the first things that they had translated into English:

      https://books.google.com/books?id=cDI_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA446&lpg=PA446&dq=british+association+committee+1838+translation&source=bl&ots=9sEMOcgZdb&sig=jBR7kg-lweI49BNrDb-HU9QWEFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG_Jf-0_PNAhUH12MKHWpDBjwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=british%20association%20committee%201838%20translation&f=false

      • Jim says:

        Gauss’ work was nearly all written in Latin. In 1838 I don’t think that there was a version of the Principia available in English. An English speaking student in Britain at that time had to learn Latin to read it.

  39. rec1man says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_28780350/list-california-national-merit-scholar-semifinalists-2015-2016

    Is the list of National Merit Semifinalists for California for 2016

    Total 2200

    Of which , by analysing names

    1150 are east asian

    110 are jewish

    31 are muslims – including South Asian, Iranian , Turkish, whatever

    300 are Indians of which , 140 brahmins, ( 5% of Indian pop ) , 60 North Indian merchants ( 5% of Indian pop ) , 60 Dravidian Landlords ( 5% of India )

    9 Patels and 6 Sikhs

    Regarding the low Indian PISA scores, the answer is PISA measures not only IQ but also Schooling
    There are 2 separate school systems in India,

    Central Board – which offers a tough curriculum, and mostly attended by upper castes – 10% of students

    State Board – 90% of students , which offers easy grading – Social Justice – where lots of students get 100%, including Dalits, and they can then claim that the Upper Caste gap has been closed – Low castes mostly attend the State Board, to get very high grades – and my guess is that that the Indian PISA sample was almost entirely state board / lower caste

    • Irving says:

      PISA scores have been shown to nearly exactly match IQ scores in just about every other country besides India, so I doubt India is an exception. But if you give evidence, and not just your guesses, that would show that indian PISA scores are low because all of the test takers are disproportionately low caste and low IQ, I’d like to see it.

      • rec1man says:

        http://qatarskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/qatar-and-pisa-test.html

        These are qatar schools, which has expat Indians in Central Board Indian schools

        Qatar School Ranking, top 30 schools out of 153

        Mean PISA = 500 = IQ 100
        SD PISA = 100 = IQ 15

        Science, Math, Reading scores

        For comparison Shanghai = 575, 600, 566 = 112 IQ

        Al-Khor Indian Stream, ( GEMS ) = 566, 592, 604 = 113 IQ = Indian Hindu technicians and Engineers of NGL
        The International School of Choueifat ( SABIS ) = 554, 562, 565 = 109 IQ = Lebanese Xtian
        Doha College Private ( British Embassy ) = 572, 553, 563 = 109 IQ = UK
        DPS Modern Indian School ( Delhi Public School Society ) = 552, 538, 563 = 107 IQ = Indian Hindu
        Qatar Academy ( US educators ) = 540, 547, 562 = 107 IQ
        American School of Doha, ( US Embassy ) = 553, 546, 559 = 108 IQ
        Park House English ( UK ) = 568, 528, 552 = 107 IQ
        Birla Public School = 586, 539, 549 = 108 IQ = Indian Hindu
        Qatar Intl Private School ( UK ) = 539, 529, 540 = 105 IQ
        Al Bayan Girls = 481, 464, 516 = Muslim Arab = 98 IQ
        Cambridge Intl Private School = 531, 484, 514 = 101 IQ
        Doha Modern Indian School ( Jai Gopal Jindal ) = 554, 525, 514 = 104 IQ = Indian Hindu
        Al-Khor British Stream ( GEMS ) = 507, 505, 503 = 102 IQ
        Dukhan English School ( UK ) = 529, 501, 500 = 102 IQ
        Debakey High School for Health ( USA ) = 492, 467, 493 = 98 IQ
        Qatar Canadian School = 451, 456, 491 = 95 IQ
        MES Indian School ( Muslim Education Society ) = 484, 469, 490 = 97 IQ = Indian Muslim
        Ideal Indian School Girls, ( Muslim ) = 481, 450, 489 = 96 IQ = Indian Muslim
        Sudanese School = 463, 411, 488 = 93 IQ , remarkably high for black-arab mullatos
        Al Arqam = 454, 451, 484 = 95 IQ
        The Gulf English = 468, 448, 482 = 95 IQ
        Philipine School = 466, 461, 480 = 96 IQ
        Jordanian School = 446, 422, 472 = 92 IQ
        Tunisian School = 459, 436, 463 = 93 IQ
        Lebanese School ( Muslim ) = 444, 501, 463 = 96 IQ
        Middle East Intl = 484, 452, 461 = 95 IQ
        Al Andalus = 446, 397, 454 = 90 IQ
        Ideal Indian School, boys ( Muslim ) = 462, 465, 453 = 94 IQ = Indian Muslim
        Egyptian School = 463, 435, 434 = 92 IQ
        American Academy = 462, 434, 434 = 92 IQ

        • Irving says:

          Of course, none of this actually means anything, and none of this answers the original question. I asked for corroborating proof for your claim that India’s PISA scores are as low as they are because the test takers are disproportionately lower caste and therefore lower IQ — and you haven’t provided it. As for Indians who don’t live in India, I have no doubt that they on average do well, or at least better than Indians living in India.

        • sprfls says:

          109 for the Lebanese Christian elite; had a hunch it’d be up there.

  40. IC says:

    Shenzhen: where the creativity is.

  41. dearieme says:

    “is it at all strange that STEM-minded Americans preferred inventing things like the revolver, the telegraph, the airplane, etc, to theoretical work?” Hats off to the Wright Bros, of course, but it wasn’t Americans who invented the telegraph or the revolver.

    • syonredux says:

      ““is it at all strange that STEM-minded Americans preferred inventing things like the revolver, the telegraph, the airplane, etc, to theoretical work?” Hats off to the Wright Bros, of course, but it wasn’t Americans who invented the telegraph or the revolver.”

      Dunno. My understanding is that Elisha Collier (from Massachusetts) invented the revolver, and that Samuel Colt(from Connecticut) improved on the design:

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

      The Wheatstone and Morse-Vail telegraph systems were developed independently of one another. Wheatstone developed his slightly ahead of Morse-Vail, but the Morse-Vail system ended up being dominant everywhere but the British Empire.

      So, yes, Morse-Vail independently invented a telegraph system.And it was more successful than Wheatstone’s.

    • Jim says:

      The idea of a telegraph was first suggested in Scotland in 1753. I believe that a Frenchman Le Bel made the first telegraphic device about 1760.

      • syonredux says:

        ‘The idea of a telegraph was first suggested in Scotland in 1753. I believe that a Frenchman Le Bel made the first telegraphic device about 1760.’

        The telegraph has a very long history. However, the systems developed by Cooke-Wheatstone and Morse-Vail were the ones that mark the true breakthroughs in terms of practical electrical telegraphy.

  42. dearieme says:

    The story with Colt was that he saw revolvers that were used in the Indian Army and thought he could adapt and improve the design for use in America. (Or so I learned from a blogger, an American I think.)

    • syonredux says:

      “The story with Colt was that he saw revolvers that were used in the Indian Army and thought he could adapt and improve the design for use in America. (Or so I learned from a blogger, an American I think.)”

      The Indian Army revolvers were invented by Elisha Collier:

      “Elisha Haydon Collier (1788–1856) of Boston invented a flintlock revolver around 1814. His weapon is one of the earliest true revolvers, in contrast to the earlier pepperboxes which were cumbersome and inaccurate multi-barreled guns prone to misfires, or even exploding.[1] In addition to being single-action, Collier’s revolver was self-priming: a compartment automatically released gunpowder into the pan when the hammer was cocked.

      It was patented in 1818, produced from 1819 by John Evans & Son of London, and used in quantity by the British forces in India. Over 10,000 were made between 1819 and 1824. A single barrel allowed greater accuracy and a faster reload time while reducing unnecessary weight. However, its flintlock action was a serious drawback: flints were unreliable and had to be changed frequently, while inferior quality powder risked a misfire.

      Samuel Colt saw weapons of this type while serving as a cabin boy aboard the brig Corvo in 1832.[6] Following his return from the Far East he was inspired to create his own caplock revolver: the Colt Paterson.”

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

      So, as I said above, Elisha Collier invented the revolver, and Samuel Colt made various improvements on the design.

      So, yes, the revolver is an American invention.

    • syonredux says:

      Incidently , Dearieme, we discussed the history of the revolver once before on Steve Sailer’s blog.You made the same comment about Colt getting his design from handguns used by the British in India. And I pointed out to you that the revolvers that were being used by the British in India were designed by an American, a New Englander named Elisha Collier.

      So, whether the credit goes to Collier or Colt or Collier-Colt, the revolver is an American invention.

      • dearieme says:

        Fair enough. But your point is still weak. It’s perfectly OK to list some American achievements of inventiveness, but it’s an inadequate argument if you don’t compare them to inventions pursued in Germany, Britain, and so on. It’s no use saying that Morse invented a telegraph unless you admit that so did Wheatstone (who happened to beat him to it). It’s no use banging on (as some people are prone to do) about Edison’s light bulb when many people worked on light bulbs and, as it happened, he was beaten to a practical design by Swann. Ditto Edison and electrification: the first large scale applications of electrification weren’t American.

        It seems to me that the real American achievement in the 19th and early 20th centuries was by the Captain of Industry types. It’s absurd to claim that Ford invented motor cars (as Obama once did) or that he invented assembly lines; what he did do was master the art of exploiting those on a mass scale. It was mass production, mass marketing, indeed mass society, that marked the USA out. It was still clear in The War; the US produced masses of weapons efficiently, speedily, and cheaply. Many of them were rather inferior, but the quantity was enormous. At the time no other country could compete.

        The outstanding American achievement since those days seems to me to be the mass market software/IT firms: Apple, Amazon, etc.

        • syonredux says:

          “Fair enough. But your point is still weak. It’s perfectly OK to list some American achievements of inventiveness, but it’s an inadequate argument if you don’t compare them to inventions pursued in Germany, Britain, and so on”

          Dunno. My point involved contrasting the disparity between American technologists (Whitney, Morse, Edison, etc) and American theoreticians in the 19th century.

          . ‘It’s no use saying that Morse invented a telegraph unless you admit that so did Wheatstone (who happened to beat him to it).”

          But I did note the Cooke-Wheatstone telegraph in an earlier comment on this post. Here it is:

          “syonredux says:
          July 12, 2016 at 12:20 pm
          As others have pointed out, a lot of this has to do with the American concentration on technology in the 19th-early 20th century

          Telegraph: Morse-Vail (independently invented slightly after Wheatstone)

          Phonograph: Edison

          Quadruplex telegraph: Edison

          Fluoroscope: Edison

          Industrial Laboratory: Edison

          Airplane: Wright Bros

          Electrical Relay: Joseph Henry”

          I’m afraid that the flesh was weak the second time I referred to the telegraph, and I didn’t feel like noting how two electrical telegraph systems were developed at roughly the same time.

          ” It’s no use banging on (as some people are prone to do) about Edison’s light bulb when many people worked on light bulbs and, as it happened, he was beaten to a practical design by Swann. Ditto Edison and electrification: the first large scale applications of electrification weren’t American.”

          But, dearieme, I never referred to Edison and the light bulb. Nor, for that matter, did I refer to Edison and electrification. Instead, I noted how Edison developed the phonograph, the fluoroscope, quadruplex telegraph, and the industrial laboratory (in the eyes of many, his most important contribution to science).For confirmation, just glance upwards.Please, don’t debate straw men.

          “It seems to me that the real American achievement in the 19th and early 20th centuries was by the Captain of Industry types.”

          Dunno. Men like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt were certainly impressive, but one can’t fail to note the tremendous achievements of men like the Wright Bros, Edison, Morse-Vail, Whitney, etc

          ” It’s absurd to claim that Ford invented motor cars (as Obama once did) or that he invented assembly lines; what he did do was master the art of exploiting those on a mass scale.”

          Since I’m not Obama, that’s more straw men again.

  43. Cplusk says:

    Also this crude graph from two years ago:

  44. Greying Wanderer says:

    Jayman

    “Why do people have a hard time accepting that not all Europeans are created equal”

    I think it’s good. Just accepting it means no one bothers figuring out why and some of the why might be fixable.

  45. ManFromAltona says:

    The economist/sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn works for decades on the economical consequences of IQ on populations and welfare. He is one of the few researchers in Europe who openly discusses the matter. Obviously, they do not like him here…

    • Erik Sieven says:

      yet he is also a fanatical antiracist. He once claimed triumphantly in a widely publicized article that by now Ghana has reached the 42. place in the TIMSS (which he by the way confounded with the IMO), but forgot to mention that the year he was reporting about only 42 countries were participating in the TIMMS. 42th out of 196 would be OK, but 42th out of 42? Thus Ghana, this great african exception, was beaten by every other participating country, including educational powerhouses like Yemen.
      By that he wanted to show that so called “racists” are wrong, and Europe should take in millions of subsaharan Africans.
      On the other hand he says some reasonable things about the effects of fertility imbalances between different countries.

      • M. M. says:

        Gunnar Heinsohn a fanatical anti-racist? Can’t confirm that–I read his articles in the German press often. Occasionally he renders unto Cesar what’s Cesar’s in order to not to sound too racist.

        He once claimed triumphantly in a widely publicized article
        that by now Ghana has reached the 42. place in the TIMSS

        Can’t google that, can you point to the url?

        http://www.theeuropean.de/gunnar-heinsohn/10690-wer-sind-die-guten-einwanderer
        Here he writes:
        “Bei TIMSS 2011 (Mathe-Olympiade) schneidet aus Afrika Ghana mit 331 Punkte am besten ab. ” Guess that’s correct.

        • Erik Sieven says:

          @M.M
          I was refering to this article
          http://www.cicero.de/weltbuehne/fluechtlinge-europas-letzte-chance/56085
          which in 2013 was not only published in the magazine cicero but also in some other big german newspapers.
          In the last Paragraph he wrote (my translation): “At the mathematical olympiad (sic!) (TIMSS) the South Koreans won with 613 point. The students of Ghana reached a honorable (sic!) 42th place”
          I also remember reading something written by him about not letting “racists” (by which he obviously meant people who are not 100% sure about total global equality in IQ) participate in the political discourse, that´s where I got “fanatical antiracist” from. But I can´t find the source right now.

          • M. M. says:

            to establishment sensibilities heinsohn is as racist as sarrazin. again, i think he merely deploys some red herrings occasionally to get them off his back. as he’s less prominent and influential than sarrazin they tend to ignore him, though.

  46. Jason Malloy says:

    “India has a low average IQ, but there are distinct subpopulations (castes) that apparently have much higher IQ – although I’d love to see some decent studies on this:”

    The studies don’t exist. No test data within India—and there is a lot of it—show high IQ subgroups.

    • gcochran9 says:

      Either some of the higher castes have significantly higher IQs than the Indian average, or they have developed highly significant ways of faking it, ones well worth exploring.

      Which isn’t necessarily the same as saying that your generic high-SAT Tambram is terribly sane.

      • Jason Malloy says:

        Well worth inquiry, but high caste populations in India have low measured IQs. And even on IQ tests developed by Indian psychologists the difference between high caste and low caste populations is remarkably minimal.

        • gcochran9 says:

          Interesting. Could you give some of the sources, or a digest of the results?

          Might boil down to particular Jatis. Or maybe my general impression is just wrong.

          • Jason Malloy says:

            Most of the papers with caste data are published in Indian journals (and I have combed through nearly every volume of Indian psych journals available in the US university ecosystem.), but I’m sure you can find some papers on Google scholar. There are also many older Indian thesis PDFs online now (a number because I requested they be digitized).

            Or to quote TRUSTED IQ TEST AUTHORITY John Ogbu: “Looking at the overall results of IQ testing in India we conclude that significant differences in cognitive test scores by caste status do not seem to exist.” (This, of course, makes Ogbu’s theory that African-Americans score low on IQ tests b/c they are a “caste-like minority” even more credible!)

            I have not done a formal review of these studies (a project in the queue), so I’ll avoid more specific claims, but the general picture is pretty clear: researchers rarely find large caste difference in IQ in India, and ‘ethnic’ subpopulations in India almost never exhibit IQ scores typical for Western Europe. So ubiquitous HBDer assertions about Subcontinental intellectual heterogeneity and Brahmin supremacy are… problematic.

            • Jim says:

              What about the supposed high IQ of Parsis? Do you know of data relating to that?

            • Anon says:

              That’s not true.
              http://www.jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2015&month=November&volume=9&issue=11&page=ZC10&id=6726

              IQ of 110 in village Tiwariganj, Lucknow and 85–92 in village, Unnao district of UP.

              85-92 is in high fluoride region.

              CPM scores are mentioned. And is normalized to 110 IQ at 29 mean CPM score.
              Mean age of participant was 9 as mentioned in the sample.

              I will use normalization data for Australia:-

              http://docslide.us/download/link/a-normative-and-reliability-study-for-the-ravens-coloured-progressive-matrices

              Average CPM score for kids in Australia in 2003 matched for same aged group shows 27 mean and 30 at 75 percentile. So, the data is well normalized as per Australian 2003 norms.

              Similarly, there are many IQ samples on India that show IQ of 100+.

              http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/44025

              IQ of Muslims in Aligarh city, Uttar Pradesh (Average IQ of 107)

              Source: “Badaruddoza. Inbreeding effects on metrical phenotypes among North Indian Children. Collegicum Antropologicum 28(Suppl. 2): 311-318. (ISSN No. 0350-6134).”

              WISC-R scale is used for analysis. Even adjusting for Flynn effect in UK from 1974 to 2004, the IQ will be above 100.

              IQ of Gujarat rural:-

              http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-20124.pdf

              http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-2007.pdf

              IQ in 6 villages of Gujarat is 97 (optimum environment) and 92 (un-optimum conditions).

              IQ of villages near Ahmedabad is 104.

              IQ is normalized to Indian version of Stanford Binet 1989 scale. And will come above 100 on normalizing it to today’s norms.

              • Anon says:

                I don’t really agree with you that India scores 80 IQ on IQ testing.

                Presently the IQ of India is close to 93. I will show you IQ data.

                IQ of Chennai, Tamil Nadu:-

                Study 1:-

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018494/

                IQ of 107 as a community sample. 4 zones in Chennai and 12 schools were selected randomly. Sample size of 717. 606 children belonged to families with less than 6500 INR monthly income. And 130 had illiterate mothers. If anything, the selection bias towards socio-economic status is downward.

                Study 2:-

                http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.2.138

                IQ of children was found to be 102. And 95 for those having high lead in blood level.

                IQ in Chandigarh, Punjab:-

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767262/

                Average IQ is 99. 5 private schools and 5 government schools were randomly selected out of 37 schools. And sample size is 2400.

                IQ in 2 rural and 2 urban areas of Punjab:-

                http://www.ijres.org/papers/Volume%204/v4-i7/Version-2/G4724854.pdf

                IQ in 2 rural areas is 96.2, 90.4. And 2 urban areas is 102, 106. IQ grades are available (0 to 10th percentile, etc.) and online statistical tool is required to read.

                Rural areas are in Dera Bassi and Tehsil Kharar. Urban areas is in Fatehgarh Saheb. And Tehsil Kharar.

                IQ of Delhi:-

                Study 1:-

                http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/420.full.pdf+html

                IQ of kids of slum dwellers in New Delhi living in plot area is 92.4. And shanty houses/homeless is 89.4.

                IQ of kids who have attended schools is 96.7 (plot area) and 93.2 (shady houses)

                Study 2:-

                http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Kundu-2015.pdf

                IQ of 76.2 in Najafgarh (rural area of Delhi) and 85.2 in Defense Colony (slightly urban area). Government school were selected in both areas.

                76 IQ in high fluoride region and has to be taken with precaution.

                Study 3:-

                Cited by Lynn:-

                https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.pdf

                Page 60:-
                Row 3 gives an IQ of 93 for 14-year-old students at St. Xavier’s School in Delhi.

                Study 4:-

                http://www.ruralneuropractice.com/article.asp?issn=0976-3147&year=2016&volume=7&issue=2&spage=238&epage=243&aulast=Ranjan

                In the above IQ sample, average full scale IQ was found to be 90.6.

                However 36/50 were from rural areas and 14/50 from urban areas.

                IQ in Andhra Pradesh (rural):-

                “Effect of fluoride exposure on Intelligence Quotient {IQ) among 13-15 year old school children of known endemic area of fluorosis, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh.” KM Sudhir, Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry Year : 2009 | Volume : 7 | Issue : 13 | Page : 88-94

                http://www.jiaphd.org/downloadpdf.asp?issn=2319-5932&year=2009&volume=7&issue=13&spage=88&epage=94&aulast=Sudhir&type=2

                IQ in 4 villages in Andhra Pradesh is 88.7, 84.5, 84.5, 80.

                IQ in West Bengal:-

                Study 1 (rural):-

                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297722925_Dental_fluorosis_and_urinary_fluoride_concentration_as_a_reflection_of_fluoride_exposure_and_its_impact_on_IQ_level_and_BMI_of_children_of_Laxmisagar_Simlapal_Block_of_Bankura_District_WB_India?_sg=OxEw86Y9iI6rPYqTlpXNxf3sHxsD4oLarEkZXw_AKdiC1SmLw9IzIsEDusa540LU

                IQ in Villages in Laxmisagar Village was 108.3 in normal regions and 85–92 in fluoride contaminated areas.

                Study 2 (rural):-

                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281872250_Association_of_iodine_status_with_IQ_level_and_academic_achievement_of_rural_primary_school_children_in_West_Bengal_India?_sg=C6DW2flLBxL70uQRbTh5PevuX6aK06oaIwvFWRYRrHYOP39LDEWGNEkXL5C1W4dQ

                Average IQ in 3 Government schools was 88.4

                IQ of Karnataka (rural):-

                http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/eswar-2011.pdf

                http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sebastian-2015.pdf

                http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388&year=2011&volume=29&issue=2&spage=117&epage=120&aulast=Shivaprakash

                IQ of 2 villages is 86, 88.

                IQ of villages near Mysore is 80, 86, 88.

                IQ of village in Bagalkot is 76.36.

                IQ of Scheduled tribes in sub-urbs of Karnataka:-

                http://web.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.php/IJFS/article/view/3461/2722

                IQ of 102 with 106 IQ for healthy group.

                WISC III was administered for testing.

                IQ of Kolkata:-

                Study 1 (Lynn’s sample):-

                http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1974-10149-001

                “Compared scores of 2 geographically separated Bengali-speaking groups of schoolchildren, grades IX-XI, on Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. 2,836 Ss from Calcutta and 2,100 Ss from Agartala were tested. Ss from Calcutta were superior to those from Agartala by an average of 7 points.”

                Lynn reports this as IQ of 83. However, IQ of Calcutta was 87 and Agartala (Burmese/Tibetans/Chinese inhabited area) show IQ of 80. As shown above.

                Study 2:-

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22648/full

                Average IQ in 81–90 range (10th and 25th percentile for British).

                57.95% undernourished kids in the sample (downward sampling of population). 21.5% kids had IQ above 120.

                IQ in Uttar Pradesh:-

                Study 1 (rural):

                http://www.jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2015&month=November&volume=9&issue=11&page=ZC10&id=6726

                IQ of 110 in village Tiwariganj, Lucknow and 85–92 in village, Unnao district of UP.

                85-92 is in high fluoride region.

                CPM scores are mentioned. And is normalized to 110 IQ at 29 mean CPM score.
                Mean age of participant was 9 as mentioned in the sample.

                I will use normalization data for Australia:-

                http://docslide.us/download/link/a-normative-and-reliability-study-for-the-ravens-coloured-progressive-matrices

                Average CPM score for kids in Australia in 2003 matched for same aged group shows 27 mean and 30 at 75 percentile. So, the data is well normalized as per Australian 2003 norms.

                Study 2(urban):

                http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/44025

                IQ of Muslims in Aligarh city, Uttar Pradesh (Average IQ of 107)

                Source: “Badaruddoza. Inbreeding effects on metrical phenotypes among North Indian Children. Collegicum Antropologicum 28(Suppl. 2): 311-318. (ISSN No. 0350-6134.”

                IQ of Gujarat rural:-

                http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-20124.pdf

                http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-2007.pdf

                IQ in 6 villages of Gujarat is 97 (optimum environment) and 92 (un-optimum conditions).

                IQ of villages near Ahmedabad is 104.

                IQ in Maharashtra (Pune):-

                http://www.indianpediatrics.net/feb2004/feb-121-128.htm

                86.1 for low birth weight, 92.1 for medium birth weight and 97.2 for normal birth weight.

                https://www.indianpediatrics.net/july1999/july-669-676.htm

                IQ of control group was 101.38. And LBW was 94.

                IQ of Madhya Pradesh (rural):-

                http://www.ruralneuropractice.com/article.asp?issn=0976-3147&year=2012&volume=3&issue=2&spage=144&epage=149&aulast=Saxena

                IQ of villages near Bhopal is 98.5.

                IQ of remaining 3 high fluoride villages in Madhya Pradesh is 83.6, 87 and 91.6.

                IQ of Rajasthan (rural):-

                http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/singh-2013.pdf

                IQ of villages near Jaipur is 93.31 and near Dausa is 84.48.

                Study 2 (Lynn’s sample, Agarwal and Sinha 1984):-

                http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01068128

                IQ of Muslims in government schools near Jaipur is 81 (non-inbred).

                Lynn cited this as average IQ of 78. A combination of inbred and outbred Muslims.

                Muslims not practicing inbreeding show 81 IQ.

                IQ of Bihar:-

                Lynn’s sample:-

                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19964938_Consquences_of_consanguinity_on_cognitive_behavior

                Average IQ is 93 suburbs, 79 rural.
                And 79 suburbs, 69 rural for inbred muslims.

                Lynn reports this as 79 average IQ. However, Muslims not practicing inbreeding show IQ of 85.

                A table with details is presented below. And it contains IQ data, date of publication, norms used, test conducted, location, etc.

                Many of the IQ samples have been standardized on old norms. Like IQ in Chennai is published in 2013, measured in 2005. And standardized on Binet-Kamath scale of 1967 which measures IQ with respect to British 1967 kids.

                To remove bias of standardization on old norms, I present the following table:-

                Where date of measurement is not given, I have used date of publication as date of measurement. One location of IQ measurement represents one row in the table below.
                Flynn effect is used as 2.25 based on
                http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf

                Changes of RPM scores in UK. As IQ data is on people with less than 20 years age, Figure 3 is used. IQ changed from 1938 to 1979 as “50 th percentile of 1979 was equivalent to 70 th percentile of 1938”.

                Location….IQ (old norms)……Date…..Year of norm…..Diff…..Flynn …..IQ (new norms)
                Punjab…….90.28……………….2016…….1979………………37…….2.25………81.955
                Punjab……..96.43……………….2016…….1979………………37…….2.25………88.105
                Punjab…….102.33……………..2016…….1979………………..37………2.25……..94.005
                Punjab…….106.34……………..2016…….1979………………..37………2.25……..98.015
                Chandigarh.99.31………………2008…….1979………………..48………2.25……..88.51
                Delhi…………76.2……………….2015……..1979………………..17………2.25……..72.375
                Delhi…………85.8……………….2015……..1979………………..17……….2.25……..81.975
                Delhi…………92.5……………….1999………1979………………..13………2.25……..89.575
                Delhi…………89.4……………….1999………1986………………..13………2.25……..86.475
                Delhi…………90.4……………….2016………1969………………..47………2.25……..79.825
                UP……………107.42…………….2004……..1974………………..30………2.25……..100.67
                UP…………….110.1………………2015………NA………………..17………….NA……..110.1
                UP……………..90………………….2015………NA………………..17………….NA……..90
                Gujarat……….97.17………………2012………1989………………..23………2.25……..91.995
                Gujarat……….92.53………………2012………1989………………..23………2.25……..87.355
                Gujarat……….104.44…………….2007………1989………………..18………2.25……..100.39
                Gujarat……….91.72……………….2007………1989………………..18………2.25……..87.67
                Karnataka……88.8………………..2011………1977………………..34………2.25……..81.15
                Karnataka…….86.3……………….2011………1977………………..34………2.25……..78.65
                Karnataka…….86.37……………..2015………1998………………..17………2.25……..82.545
                Karnataka……..88.6………………2015………1998………………..17………2.25……..84.775
                Karnataka……..80.49…………….2015………1998………………..17………2.25……..76.665
                Karnataka……..76………………….2011………2004………………..7……….2.25……..74.425
                Karnataka……..66………………….2011………2004………………..7………..2.25……..64.425
                Karnataka……..106…………………2015……..1991………………..32………2.25…….. 100.6
                AP………………..88.7……………… 2009……..1992………………..17………2.25……..84.875
                AP…………………84.5………………2009……..1992………………..17………2.25……..80.675
                AP…………………84.5………………2009……..1992………………..17………2.25……..80.675
                AP………………….80……………… 2009………1992………………..17………2.25……..76.175
                MP……………….98.5………………2012………1992………………..20………2.25……..94
                MP……………….91.6……………….2012……….1992………………20………2.25……..87.1
                MP……………….87………………….2012………1992………………..20………2.25……..82.5
                MP……………….83.6……………….2012………1992………………..20………2.25……..79.1
                Rajasthan……….81………………….1984………1977………………..7………2.25……..79.425
                Rajasthan……….93.3……………… 2013……… 1992 ………………..21………2.25……..88.575
                Rajasthan……….84.48……………..2013………1992………………..21………2.25……..79.755
                West Bengal……106………………..2015……… 1989………………..26………2.25……..100.15
                West Bengal…….90…………………2015………1989………………..26………2.25……..84.15
                West Bengal…….88.8………………2014………2003………………..11………2.25……..86.325
                Chennai………….107………………..2006………1967………………..39………2.25……..98.225
                Chennai………….102………………. 2013……….1973………………..40………2.25……..93
                Pune………………97………………….2000………1973………………..27………2.25……..90.925
                Pune……………….101.38……………1994……….1960………………..34………2.25……..93.73

                The average IQ at 42 locations of India is 86.41 IQ. With 9/42 IQ samples done in urban areas like Chennai. Note that Delhi is considered as rural area in below calculations as IQ data used for Delhi is in slum area of Delhi, or Nazafgarh (a village outside Delhi) and a hospital where 72% admits where rural.

                IQ of urban areas of India based on the IQ data available is: 93 IQ.
                IQ of rural areas of India based on the IQ data available is: 85 IQ.

                India is 30% urban and 70% rural.

                Calculating on urban/rural divide of India, average IQ of India is 87.4 IQ.

                As many of the data-set is on fluoride IQ studies on India, IQ of Fluoride free regions is also desired.

                IQ of fluoride free regions of India based on IQ data available is 88.73 IQ (rural).

                Studies showing mal-nourishment and IQ,

                http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/420.full.pdf+html

                This is the only study showing mal-nourishment effects on IQ.

                IQ of malnourished kids is 10 points below at 83 IQ v/s healthy kids having same socio-economic status is 93 IQ.

                India faces 40% mal-nourishment. So, average IQ of 40% of India’s population is down by 10 IQ points.

                Which will put average IQ of India down by 4 IQ points due to mal-nourishment.

                So, a combined effect of fluoride and mal-nourishment is bringing IQ of India down by 8 IQ points.

                I conclude that average IQ of India will be 95 IQ on removal of fluoride and mal-nourishment from a current estimate of 87 IQ based on rural/urban IQ analysis on India.

                For any further improvements, India may have to switch to meat based diets, putting itself at par with Europe on iodine consumption status which will put India at par with Europe on average IQ (97).

                IQ of India by caste:-

                There is no major differences between Indian castes and IQ results.

                https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9tZ4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=chopra+iq+difference+between+castes&source=bl&ots=mUJt4iGaiY&sig=K5__8u3gFJA4AG6yXxjnwnzm4Xk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUm83W_MbQAhUEQI8KHW–DpEQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=chopra%20iq%20difference%20between%20castes&f=false

                Page 16.

                This book covers several IQ samples of India by caste.

                There is no major differences between Indian castes. As per IQ tests done.

                On non-verbal IQ tests (Raven’s Progressive Matrices), there are no significant differences among Indian castes.

                As it is observed via IQ testing that Vaishyas have higher non-verbal IQ than Kshatriya who have higher non-verbal IQ than Brahmins followed by SCs.

                Rather the difference between Vaishyas and Brahmins on non-verbal IQ tests (as per IQ research) is same as the difference between Brahmins and Scheduled Castes.

                Secondly, the differences among Indian castes is estimated to be less than 3 IQ points on non-verbal IQ tests.

                However on verbal IQ tests, the difference is 11 IQ points.

        • rec1man says:

          2017 – California National merit, top 0.5% of high school students – 140 IQ ?

          Chinese 850, Korean 100, Vietnamese 70, Japanese 30 ; Jews = 125 ; Muslim = 55 ;

          Indians 275, ( 0 dalits )

          Bengali speakers, 12 brahmins, 6 kayasth ( scribe ), Total 18 ;

          Gujurati speakers, 3 brahmins, 14 Jain ( merchants ), 6 Hindu merchants, 1 low caste peasant, 4 Patels , Total 28 ;

          Hindi speakers – 14 brahmins, 2 kayasth ( scribe ), 1 low caste peasant , 20 merchants, 9 Rajputs ( nobles ), Total 46 ;

          Kannada speakers – 14 brahmins, 4 dravidian upper caste landlords , Total 18 ;

          Malayalam speakers – 1 brahmin, 6 Nair ( upper caste dravidian landlords, matriarchy – women impregnated by brahmins for 1000 years ) total 7 ;

          Marathi speakers – 18 brahmins, 2 kayasth (scribe ), 2 Maratha landlords, total 22 ;

          Punjabi speakers – 3 Jat Sikhs, 17 merchants, total 20

          Sindhi speakers – 6 merchants

          Tamil speakers – 44 brahmins, 20 upper caste dravidian landlords, Total 64 ;

          Telugu speakers – 16 brahmins, 38 upper caste dravidian landlords, Total 54

    • Bob says:

      I recall an Indian telling me that in India, the stereotype is that certain groups in the more southern and Dravidian part of India are the brainiacs in math and the like. rather than the more northern, lighter Indians in northwestern India, which is an inversion of the usual pattern elsewhere. I believe fertility rates are lower in southern India as well.

      • Irving says:

        Yeah, South India is actually wealthier, less Islamic and has a lower birth rate than the North. All of the most developed regions of India are in South India.

      • Matt says:

        Not too different from China? In Europe possibly the mid-latitude folks that seem to be the most accomplished (IRC, in accomplishment Bavarians, Swiss, North Italians > Swedes, etc, generally?).

        • Anon says:

          Not if we go by Nobel Laureates per capita or GDP per capita. The historic accomplishments of Germany have mostly come from Prussia as well, not the Southern German states.

          Country Laureates Population Laureates per capita

          — Faroe Islands 1 48,199 207.473
          1 Saint Lucia 2 184,999 108.109
          2 Luxembourg 2 567,110 35.267
          3 Sweden 30 9,779,426 30.677
          4 Iceland 1 329,425 30.356
          5 Switzerland 25 8,298,663 30.125
          6 Norway 13 5,210,967 24.947
          7 Denmark 14 5,669,081 24.695
          8 Austria 21 8,544,586 24.577
          9 United Kingdom 125 64,715,810 19.315
          10 East Timor 2 1,184,765 16.881
          11 Ireland 7 4,688,465 14.930
          12 Israel 12 8,064,036 14.881
          13 Germany 105 80,688,545 13.013
          14 Netherlands 19 16,924,929 11.226
          15 United States 353 321,773,631 10.970
          16 France 61 64,395,345 9.473
          — European Union[3] 466 505,150,401 9.225
          17 Hungary 9 9,855,023 9.132
          18 Belgium 10 11,299,192 8.850
          19 Cyprus 1 1,165,300 8.581
          20 Trinidad and Tobago 1 1,360,088 7.352
          21 Finland 4 5,503,457 7.268
          22 New Zealand 3 4,528,526 6.625
          23 Canada 23 35,939,927 6.400
          24 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 3,810,416 5.249
          25 Latvia 1 1,970,503 5.075
          26 Australia 12 23,968,973 5.006
          27 Slovenia 1 2,067,526 4.837
          28 Macedonia 1 2,078,453 4.811
          29 Czech Republic 5 10,543,186 4.742
          30 Liberia 2 4,503,438 4.441
          31 Lithuania 1 2,878,405 3.474
          32 Italy 20 59,797,685 3.345
          — Tibet[4] 1 3,195,085 3.130
          33 Poland 12 38,611,794 3.108
          34 Croatia 1 4,240,317 2.358
          35 Palestine 1 4,668,466 2.142
          36 Belarus 2 9,495,826 2.106
          37 Costa Rica 1 4,807,850 2.080
          38 Romania 4 19,511,324 2.050
          39 Portugal 2 10,349,803 1.932
          40 Japan 24 126,573,481 1.896
          41 South Africa 10 54,490,406 1.835
          42 Greece 2 10,954,617 1.826
          43 Spain 8 46,121,699 1.735
          44 Russia 23 143,456,918 1.603
          45 Bulgaria 1 7,149,787 1.399
          — Hong Kong 1 7,287,983 1.372
          46 Guatemala 2 16,342,897 1.224
          — World[5] 874 7,349,472,099 1.189

          Not sure why you’d think southern Chinese is more accomplished than northern China either.

          Chinese IQ by region:

          Countries by innovation:

          That list would probably be the same going back to the 1400s.

          • Albert says:

            “The historic accomplishments of Germany have mostly come from Prussia as well, not the Southern German states.”

            “That list would probably be the same going back to the 1400s.”

            As always, you’re wrong.

            • Anon says:

              -_-

              You really shouldn’t source Charles Murray if he still makes the larger point I’m making. Nothing about date there either(Charles Murray covers way before the 1400s as well), so nothing to contradict my point here.

              You should totally source another obscure southern European-centric blog again.

              Really, northern Italians haven’t really been relevant since the 1600s.

              Not to mention, Murray doesn’t go by per capita, and as I’m sure you know with your great showing of knowledge on this thread, that Italy has been historically the 2nd most populated region in Europe after France until the 1800s, tripling up on a place like England in the 1400s and double England in the 1600s.

              • Albert says:

                I don’t know what thread you’re reading, but you were wrong that German accomplishments came mostly from Prussia rather than Bavaria – Murray proves the opposite. You were also wrong that achievement 500 years ago would be dominated by Scandinavians – it was dominated by Italy and a few other spots from 1400-1600 according to the maps you just posted. The period covered in the map I posted is 1400-1950, but if you went back farther, even more achievement would come from Italy (and Greece) and almost none from Northern Europe.

                Italy is always relevant . . .

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Italy
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy

                But comparing its population to England’s is dishonest. Germany and Austria-Hungary had about the same population as Italy but also not as many significant figures as England. Austria-Hungary didn’t even have half as many as Italy. Modern England is just unique I guess (and also only about 30% Germanic).

                I haven’t sourced any blogs, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Reading some other thread again maybe?

              • If anyone wants the raw data pertaining to these graphs, I have it in an Excel Spreadsheet. email me at cmurray@aei.org.

            • JoachimStrobel says:

              Simply google where Mercedes and Porsche and Bosch have their Headquarter and where IBM had its German base.

  47. Dylan says:

    I’ve spent quite a lot of time looking into the topic of human differences, and in all that time I haven’t come across any good reason to think that cognitive capacities are identical across ethnic groups, or even an explanation for why this would be anything less than a miracle. Instead what I’ve found, on the rare occasion that someone acknowledges that other perspectives are possible, are frantic attempts to shoot down claims to the contrary with what appears to be every argument they can think of. Despite having at best only the skimpiest of evidence on their side, biological egalitarians seem to regard their position as so obvious that consideration for the other side is deemed unnecessary. Those who dissent from their point of view either receive the silent treatment or are denounced as racist lunatics. After all, anyone willing to entertain the notion that 2000 generations of isolated breeding in substantially different environments could produce e.g., one standard deviation of difference in traits like abstract reasoning ability, cannot be motivated by anything other than blind racism. It really is a tribute to the human capacity for self-deception that when ideological commitments are thought to be at stake otherwise objective people can hold views so widely at odds with what the evidence does and does not tell us. I frankly don’t have a problem with being agnostic on the issue, but to act as if biological egalitarianism is not only true, but obviously true (which is indeed the position of most people) is an embarrassment.

    • Dale says:

      It seems to me that the problem is solvable (e.g., Gregory Clark seems to have done so), but it requires some care.

      First, let’s define “racism”. For this topic, I think a workable definition is “the belief that the dark-skinned races are genetically doomed to stupidity and poverty, and opposition to spending public money alleviating that”. Strictly speaking, there is a lot of racism that isn’t covered by that definition, and a small slice of what it covers that is not truly racism, but I think that definition captures well what is important for this topic.

      We also have to be aware that the number of people who are interested in the abstract truth is very small. Most people who spend much effort to find it out are those who are paid to do so by government grants. Generally people who spend a lot of effort promulgating some abstract truth are using that as a stalking horse for some political position.

      Their audiences also know that, so they assume that every speech is a political act unless they have specific evidence to the contrary.

      Based on that, the first question is to discern where you’re coming from. What are your underlying politics? Why do you want to pick this fight?

      The way to get out of this bind seems to be the way that Gregory Clark did it. And Clark’s research produced results that were even less P.C. than IQ research. Whereas the strong correlation between IQ and income seems to have been only during the last 50 years or so, Clark has shown that there’s a strongly inherited characteristic that substantially affects income and status, and it’s been doing so for 500 years or more. That is, there are many people who are genetically disadvantaged in every society he’s studied.

      Nonetheless, Clark seems to have escaped persecution simply by publicizing that his political goals are to ameliorate the lot of the disadvantaged. E.g., in https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/social-mobility-equality-class-society he writes “Social mobility barely exists but let’s not give up on equality … We live surrounded by inequality. Some have wealth, health, education, satisfying occupations. Others get poverty, ill-health and drudgery. The Conservative reaction, personified by David Cameron, is to promote social mobility and meritocracy. … History shows this will fail to increase mobility rates. Given that social mobility rates are immutable, it is better to reduce the gains people make from having high status, and the penalties from low status. The Swedish model of compressed inequality is a realistic option, the American dream of rapid mobility an illusion.”

      • JerryC says:

        The “Swedish model of compressed inequality” is also an illusion, unless you have a country full of Swedes.

    • Daddy Cool B1g says:

      They act as if it is “obviously true” because they firmly believe it untrue.
      Always keep in mind visible behaviour is inner thoughts, mirrored.

  48. Li says:

    Incidentally, genomic predicting of the variance in educational attainment hit a new milestone.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-tipping-point.html

  49. JoachimStrobel says:

    I am missing the influence of the Weather on IQ. The Scandinavian countries serve as a prototype for high IQ countries. Could Einstein have existed in Arizona? I do not think so. The planning for bad weather, the change of day light length and the change of seasons seems to require a certain smartness and creates a good stimulus. Northern to southern Italy IQ differences seem to be also a good example for that.

    • South Germany scores higher at PISA study than North. The biggest companies are also in the south.
      Eskimos have an IQ of 90, similar to middle eastern people.
      I think weather argument is too simplistic.

      • JoachimStrobel says:

        Southern Germany consisted of poor farmers states 100 years ago. The big companies that you mean did hardly exist then. For sure I meant climate and Germany would be considered as one zone (sure, it is warmer in the south and that attracts smarter and wealthier people). And the Eskimos live in the arctic Sahara.

        • So you are talking about 100 years ago. OK, then let’s talk about 1000 years ago or even more. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians were probably much more intelligent than the nordic folks.

          • JoachimStrobel says:

            I have a problem with that statement when I consider the Nebraska sky disk and Stonehenge as evidence of the nordic’s folk cleverness. Of course, sea going Greeks could have done it…

  50. John Harvey says:

    Interesting to compare the world map of national IQ differences above, with one showing national fertility rates. Strong inverse correlation.

  51. Just for the record, Asians seem also to have higher standard deviation based on SAT:
    https://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.de/2012/04/sat-bell-curve.html

    It seems like the higher the IQ average, the higher also the standard deviation. It is strange considering lack of Asians at the highest levels: Nobel or Fields Medal. However young asians rock at PISA, IMO and SAT.

  52. Pingback: Core v. Periphery VS. IQ and the Wealth of Nations | al fin next level

  53. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2016/07/10) - Social Matter

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s