Established: IQ is a well-understood, race/language independent measure of some (large) part of mental functioning, that is strongly positively correlated with almost all positive values in live (perhaps within normal, 2 sigma ranges -- 70-130). Most folks who say otherwise don't have any idea what they're talking about
One of the critiques often leveled by the HBD folks against democracy is that IQ is important, and (for instance), African countries tend towards IQ's about 2standard deviations below (70) American Average, and African Americans tend towards about half-way between the African Average and the American (oddly).
When this discussion happens, I always look at the Flynn effect. On every test we've got...and every way we know how to measure things, IQ has been going up for at least half a century, and probably a lot longer than that. Some folks have suggested that average IQ in 1920 would have been around 70 on today's scales. While clearly the effect would not have been continuous...it is fairly solidly established. I'd always heard a half-standard-deviation in IQ per generation, but the numbers seem all over the place.
My personal opinion is that the Flynn effect probably was solid for about a century, maybe 1890 to 1990, as parasites and disease started being eliminated, and nutrition got better, and stopped after that. Which would put the average IQ in 1789 somewhere near 70. If we take established science, we can see that the average African now is about as smart as the average American when the constitution was written. I don't think that constitutes a group of people who aren't smart enough to govern themselves. I think there's a heckuva lot of crappy institutions that prevent them from governing themselves, but I have to say...it's the system to blame (and in Africa, the system is clan-based kleptocracy left by the failure of the states that the Europeans should never have created), not the people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Was that "oddly" serious?
I think your take on the Flynn effect is probably right. But one thing to keep in mind is that the upper classes in 1789 would almost certainly have had access to better food if not better medical care. Their average IQ might have been significantly higher than the norm for the population as a whole. This wouldn't have been like the genetic effect we see in the Ashkenazi Jews, but something more like the queen bee getting fed better honey. Improvements in sanitary engineering, food supplies and lastly medicine would have brought the rest of the populace up to their full genetic potential, that previously would have only been seen, typically, in the aristocracy.
Since medicine and nutrition have improved worldwide (if not evenly) and the spread between African IQ and European IQs has remained steady despite the Flynn effect argues that there is a genetic component to that difference.
Perfidy,
Sorry, no, the oddly was facetious. African Americans have significant mixed ancestry, and MUCH better health/nutrition/medicine so... duh?
OTOH, I'm not buying your medical care line, and your food line is iffy. Yeah, the upper classes had access to more food, and so they were less likely to be malnourished, but along an awful lot of dimensions, they didn't get much better nutrition, if I have my history right.
In terms of infectious disease, medicine just sucked. People were ill, and ill a lot. Water-borne, and air-borne, and flea-borne illnesses were just impossible to solve for people with 1789 technology.
Now, that's not saying there weren't some +4 sigma folks (Jefferson, Franklin, among others), but I don't think they were effective 200-IQs, but rather that the system they operated under (no school) was a much better fit for extraordinary intellects than our own.
2. I wasn't arguing against genetics, but against many of the suggestions made to address the IQ differences. Early (European) Americans were as low IQ on average as modern Africans...we shouldn't assume they need systems that are much different from the better systems from the 1780s (which in my book was the Articles of Confederation).
Premise #1 The Flynn effect is poorly understood and may be partially an artifact. You're trying to extrapolate too much from it.
Premise #2 A major component of the effect is improving nutrition etc, which impacts the left hand of the bell curve but not the right.
Conclusion #1 I doubt the colonial American IQ ever equaled the African IQ. You might see that level of white degradation in industrial revolution slums, and certainly social crusaders excoriated vices in those neighborhoods similar to what we see in black ones today.
Conclusion #2 Colonial American was better governed than black Africa ever was because governance, like economic growth, is a function of the right side of the bell curve, not the left.
Conclusion #3 The Flynn effect cannot be backdated indefinitely because nutritional improvement cannot either. Under the paleo diet all races reach their maximum genetic potential IQ. There is no historical evidence of any change in the right hand potential of any group except Ashkenazi jews, and that was produced under a nigh unreplicable crucible of forces.
Summary Conclusion: The Flynn effect remains a question mark of relative unimportance in HBD theory.
It's hard to read tone of voice over the internet. I thought you were being facetious, but wasn't totally sure.
Most of the improvements in health are really engineering rather than medicine per se. Sewers, filtration plants, less horse crap in the roads, etc. I'm not saying that everyone in the upper classes was smarter - just that better access to food would have removed or mitigated one of the things that would have resulted in stunted mental growth. The upper classes had different diets than the lower classes in some respects - more imported foods, greater variety, and so on. Also, they probably ate less carbs and had more pickled/fermented foods than moderns. They also drank staggering amounts of booze because they had a pretty good idea that the water was bad.
Good point about the unschooling though. In my arguments with family about homeschooling (especially my American-history loving mom) I've always pointed at Franklin, Adams (Abigail), Jefferson and the lot.
Of course, I think that highly intelligent Americans need systems that are not much different from the better systems from the 1760s, so it's not a stretch to imagine that the poor, benighted Africans need them too.
Koanic,
1. I agree that it's poorly understood. I don't understand the artifact bit. People are getting better at the G-loaded parts of IQ. They're getting smarter.
2. Some studies have suggested that 1920s White American IQ equaled Modern African IQ. Colonial wasn't much better than that (given the history of economic growth per capita).
3. I agree about indefinite backdating, but honestly, nutrition and medicine (tracking economic growth) have only been on a measureable upslope since ~1800. We only really have to backdate 200 years.
4. Left side of the curve? It's a lot messier than that. And I don't think there's evidence that suggests it's a lot better. My wife's uncle (black like her) was a prodigy like me, but more disciplined and a professor at 19...runs in that family. It's not like we don't have an impressive left-side of the curve...you'd have to argue left-sided depth and all sorts of weird metrics.
In summary, I don't think you can make recolonization arguments on Africa based on HBD concerns. The fact that anglo-style laissez faire capitalism with rule of law trumping rule of people, and serious anti-corruption activity being the only system EVER to promote economic growth might be a different argument.
Perfidy,
Well said on engineering. More true than darn near anyone realizes. And fair enough on the 1 fewer hurdles.
It is really hard to square the Flynn effect with the dramatic decline of levels of literacy in the US since the 1800s. You'd have to postulate that the methods of public education in the US have worsened at an even faster rate than I'm willing to defend. It may well be true, but it's difficult to wrap one's mind around.
Jehu,
IIRC, the literacy rates in the USA were >95% before the advent of public schools in the 1850s. Literacy just isn't that hard.
Motivation, though, wins all learning contests. And motivation to read is being killed by the schools (and secondarily by TV).
Burn down the K-12 schools, pour salt in the holes so nothing else can grow there, wait 5 years, and watch literacy improve. Yeah...it's incendiary. But I'd bet that way, pretty hard.
1. I remain skeptical about the ability of tests 50-200 years ago to accurately disambiguate G. To a lesser degree, I also remain skeptical about modern G disambiguation technique's ability to correct for differing historical levels of exposure to abstract thought. In my view the Flynn meme is part artifact, part nutritional/health effect.
2. Of course there will always be studies pushing an equalist agenda. Their existence means nothing.
3. Measurable upslope since 1800? American frontiersmen ate a heavily meat diet. And surprise surprise, were fiercely pro-liberty. Nutrition is not like technology, which can be measured on a much more stable improving curve. And medicine and sanitation become irrelevant to IQ given a low enough population density and high meat diet.
4. Left side of the curve refers to the below average IQ half of the population. Your discussion of black prodigies leads me to believe you are referring to something else by that term. That would be the right side.
Summary: Pax Brittania recolonialization is the best solution for Africans, total government disengagement the second best. Post pax Americana, I see a combination of recolonialization and genocide being the most probable.
My comment exceeded the limit, so I posted it on my own blog.
I'm very skeptical of IQ in general.
Do I think it measures intelligence? Sure. Every high IQ person I've met is smart.
But is every smart person I've met high IQ? I very much doubt it.
I think the test is far too simplistic to have much useful general value - certainly when applied to large populations.
Borepatch,
I blogged about that a few days ago.
IQ measures a particular set of cognitive skills (roughly, mental agility). Turns out those skills are highly correlated with effectively all positive outcomes in life.
It's kinda like strength for athletics. Stronger guys do better at EVERYTHING. Sure, strong guys with no coordination can't play tennis. But you can't play tennis in the big leagues without getting strong. And that's true for most other sports as well.
Intellectual activity is the same. Higher IQs do better on everything, all the time. But not better than average if they're emotionally stunted, completely irrational, or really impulsive.
I'm personally of the opinion that impulsiveness is the key trait... folks who can wait before acting win, and folks who can't lose.
But IQ is the best studied one, and significantly correlated with non-impulsiveness.
Borepatch - does every computer with a high speed CPU have a defragged harddrive clean of malware? Does a computer require a fast CPU to competently execute basic computing tasks? Nevertheless, do you want to edit video on a slow processor? Will you pay more for a faster CPU?
Equalists love to turn to the Flynn effect. They attempt to use what is genuinely controversial and poorly understood to overturn what is politically controversial but scientifically sound. There is nothing wrong with tribal, aristocratic and monarchical forms of government, and those are the only ones (besides matriarchy) AFAIK black Africans have ever pulled off with anything resembling success.
Moreover, propensity for violent crime is another 1 SD difference between blacks and whites demonstrated by La Griffe du Lion to be consistent internationally. It's my suspicion that, consistent with stereotype, a host of such disparities stand between blacks and anything resembling the government of post-colonial America. E.g, internally motivated work ethic and (very hypothetically) supra tribal altruism.
Aretae, social savvy or sociability is better correlated with income even than IQ.
I wonder how much of the correlations between IQ and general life success have been controlled for race? Income has but I don't know about the others. Doing so might significantly reduce IQ's perceived value.
Koanic,
I'm not an equalist...I think that there are huge innate differences, and I've blogged about it quite a bit in the past.
I just don't buy the colonialist position that they need external guidance.
I do think that there's only been 1 known effective (for-the-peasants) form of government ever invented, and that is Anglo-Dutch small government (since spread partially to Europe, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore, and from there to China). And all other forms yet discovered suck.
Known: Average IQ matters.
Unknown: Average IQ matters for governance
Known: Average IQ varies over time as well as between races.
Unknown: Average colonial IQ might have been near modern African IQ, but almost certainly was nowhere near modern American IQ.
I'll just throw in a few points I think are very relevant:
1. Based on analogy with physical abilities, there will be a multigenerational lag in environmental effects. That is, if we start with a population that is stunted (mentally/physically) because of a poor environment, and then we introduce them to a perfect environment, we will still get a slow increase in capability. The first generation born in the perfect environment will still have been gestated in a stunted mother, as well as having inherited problems in other ways. This could take a generation or two for the effect of the previous poor environment to disappear. So even if the modern diet and environment reached perfection in 1970 (which it didn't) we will still see asymptopic improvements in height/health/IQ until 2050 or so.
2. I think the distribution of intelligence may be more important as the average value. Koanic mentioned that the quality of government depends on the right side of the bell curve, but isn't it just as likely that the ability of a population to be governed depends on the left side? When law and order breaks down, it isn't the doctors and engineers who are smashing windows and looting liquor stores. The government may be perfectly fine for them. It may even be that too large a gap between the 10th and 90th percentiles leads to social stress and inability to have common goals.
Drpat, two excellent points. Your second point may, uh point to why homogenous societies are often more successful.
But, I think that the nature of the right side of the bell curve would be more telling in the end, if only because stupid is to some extent self limiting.
"1 Known: Average IQ matters.
2 Unknown: Average IQ matters for governance
3 Known: Average IQ varies over time as well as between races.
4 Unknown: Average colonial IQ might have been near modern African IQ, but almost certainly was nowhere near modern American IQ."
I know you're not an equalist.
2 disagree, 3 but not the genetic mean.
4 correcting for race, colonial was lower. but I don't think it was lower uniformly, e.g. not for frontiersmen. I think the difference between an American frontiersman's average IQ and a modern white American's would be due to a testing artifact, if any such difference could be detected.
If there was a large difference, it would be inexplicable and we would have to radically adjust our understanding of the genetic stability of IQ. I'm not prepared to do that on something so flimsy as a contentious Flynn effect. Comparing 200 year old bones to contemporary ones is one thing, comparing brains is quite another. I don't see that 1800s Europeans or Americans would have any trouble annihilating contemporary Africans all over again. To try to assert such an equality purely from a questionable extrapolation of a questionable data trend is highly tendentious.
I think the historical contrast between traditional African societies untouched by Western influence and those under British or South African or Rhodesian colonial management is striking, particularly for participation in the modern world.
Drpat's points are quite good. My comment about the right side referred to the most advanced form of government possible, not social stability.
Your point about the only government that works, however, is quite an interesting observation. Perhaps nuclear proliferation will make small states militarily viable in the near future.
(I'm assuming you think IQ is heritable.)
Am I reading this post correctly if I infer that you then believe that every groups' has an equal base-line IQ?
I think is highly, highly unlikely. It further doesn't explain why IQ varies by race so consistently across countries.
Foseti,
I don't know that baseline IQ is a sensible position right now.
We know that right now races have different average IQs. AFAIK, we don't have a lot of experience with 4th/5th generation good nutrition/low disease/tolerable early learning opportunities black children. What's the black european/british experience. Do we have data on that?
I think that the science says, there are current differences, and they appear to be built-in. I think that everything else is subject to a lot of surmise.
Post a Comment