Subsaharan African Average IQ - a global, undeniable phenomenon

It's sarcasm.

 

Sarcasm is hard to do on text only media.

 

The Chinese. And maybe Indians.

The two biggest nations on the planet, which coincidentally harbour significant brains trusts.

 

If both groups are born in the same location, then these tests do apply.

 

What?

This is flagrantly untrue. Asians almost ALWAYS outperform whites. And it has absolutely nothing to do with 'sending money home'. They do well because they work harder than whites.

 

Reality check: that article is entirely unpersuasive. It relies heavily on the finding that adoption from a poor into an affluent home raises IQ scores, but that finding itself is highly problematic, as it does not compare the effect of adoption in the other direction, or the effect of adoption where there is no change in socioeconomic status, and elides the central confounding variable: family dysfunction. Children aren't taken out of their birth families to be adopted into other families for no reason. The source homes were likely to be highly dysfunctional, while adoptive homes are intensively selected for stability and healthy function as well as affluence, so it's not surprising that adoption per se had a positive effect on IQ: supplying the basics can enable someone to get back up to par, but that doesn't mean giving them more than the basics will enable them to exceed their par performance. Consider the analogy with food: having enough is a lot better than not having enough, but having more than enough provides no further benefit.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious. Lil Mike got it.

 

Hell, I know someone with an IQ of 75 that was a collegiate all-American, started a multimillion dollar business, received both a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Purple Heart, met with 3 different Commander-in-Chiefs, represented the US in tournament ping pong, chatted with John Lennon and took 20 years to finally nail his childhood sweetheart.

 

I didn't.

 

Childhood MALNUTRITION results in lower IQ scores irrespective of race and/or location.

Growing brains need food otherwise their potential will be stunted.

This is well established scientific knowledge and applies worldwide.

 

Right. But if a child gets enough nutrients, more than that doesn't increase their IQ any further. See how that works?

That would be a more persuasive argument if there were not a negative correlation between socioeconomic status and obesity in most advanced countries, including the USA.

 

disagree the IQ test measures intelligence for competition in civilised countries.

whites founded and developed modern civilisation, thus they are highly evolved to compete in civilisation when compared to the darker races.

generally white men in particular are superior to the darker races when competing in civilisation, that is why affirmative action and welfare disproportionately go to other races

 

the communists in china send their most talented to steal American money, the other asian's work hard to send money back to their asian countries.

they are not loyal to America, their 'hard work' is not productive and does not enrich American interests because it is based on theft.

President Trump is building a wall and banning immigration so immigrant labor is honest, and keeps money in America.

 

That changes in the environment/culture can only produce limited increases in IQ scores, seems to be born out. Testing practice makes minor improvements, but I would have thought that if coaching could produce massive jumps in IQ scores, we would have heard of it by now.

I'm not clear what genetic argument of the OP's you're challenging. On his initial post, he said about that:

It seems like some sort of hint that the OP believes there is a race based genetic component, but it's not really clear from this comment. In any case, I've not made that argument, so I don't know why you would pontificate so much on genetics in a comment to me when I've not even made that argument.

 

And who you would be better off hiring or giving a college scholarship.

 

It is one of the most firmly established findings in psychometrics. It is not hard to decrease people's IQs, and many kinds of factors have that effect -- a long career in professional boxing will certainly do it. Ensuring those negative factors are minimized does increase IQ, although if the negative factor is not removed soon enough, the damage is likely to be permanent. But if none of those harmful factors is in play, there seems to be very little that can be done to increase highly g-weighted IQ scores. Surprisingly, even if you know and have practiced the type of item you are required to answer, the effect on your score is likely to be minor.

This is complicated by the fact that most people don't understand the statistical basis of such comparisons. The more similar the population environment, the higher the statistical contribution of genetic variation. The more genetic diversity, the lower the contribution of environmental factors. This is inherent in the mathematics of statistical relationships.

IQ is just an attempt to measure the quality of interest: intelligence, or the ability to understand. Given the facts of human evolution, it would be surprising if populations with significant differences in a broad range of gene frequencies did not have associated differences in intelligence. Such differences are the engine of evolution, and in the human lineage, have produced an astonishing anatomical change in a remarkably short time: our huge, balloon-like craniums. Intelligence is also certainly concrete in the sense that it is a physical characteristic of the brain. But I don't know of anyone who claims IQ tests measure intelligence in absolute terms universally.

That depends on the test. Intelligence is the ability to understand, so a good intelligence test tests people's ability to understand new information, not their understanding of previously learned information. That is why they consist of items that are not like what people already understand. So a straight-up vocabulary test like Miller Analogies, although it is highly g-loaded in an appropriate comparison group, is a bad test of intelligence because your score basically depends on how much English you have read. It just so happens that highly intelligent people almost always read a lot, but there are too many other confounding factors potentially involved: impaired vision, dyslexia, having English as a second language, lack of access to books, etc.

That would be a bad -- i.e., invalid -- intelligence test. Good IQ test items present the subject with novel information in a novel form that they then have to understand. Raven Matrices is a good example: subjects must understand how eight abstract patterns are related, and select a ninth to fit into the empty slot of a 3x3 matrix. It is totally non-verbal, and unless you have done a similar test in the past, it is unlikely that the items will invoke any previous learning.
[/quote]This is another of the inherent biases of such testing.[/quote]
That's a matter of competent test design. Many IQ tests in the past have been badly or just naively designed, with the result that they have low validity. A well constructed modern test should have quite high validity.

 

IQ tests indicate racial superiority in white countries like America, while other races would be superior at hunter gathering it does not make them superior to whites on the world stage.

America is a white country and other races can be included to assist whites in making it better, but that does not change the fact of white privilege giving whites the advantage of higher IQ's and racial superiority.

 

IQ tests do not promote racial superiority, they are merely stating a fact that whites are racially superior due to being more intelligent.

this is not racist because whites give other races the opportunity to join their military, job market, and welfare programs.

on occasion an asian, african, or mexican can score higher than a white on an IQ test, but that does not change the fact whites founded modern civilisation and have evolved for generations to be smarter.

 

You missed my point entirely.

POVERTY stricken areas like most of Africa are going to be dealing with childhood malnutrition. Yes, we also have it in America's poverty stricken areas. Children raised in poverty are far more likely to be malnourished and THEREFORE fail to achieve their FULL IQ potential.

The racists do not understand the relationship between childhood malnutrition and lower IQ scores as a result. They are not smart enough to realize that if they grew up as malnourished children their own IQ's would be LOWER that they are now.

Childhood malnutrition is one of the easiest things to fix when it comes to ensuring a level intelligence playing field WORLDWIDE. Yes, there will ALWAYS be genetic variations regarding INDIVIDUAL IQ scores but if ALL children had an adequate balanced diet when growing up then the average IQ score globally would be 100.

 

Whites are seriously DUMB when it comes to having created a "civilization" that is DESTROYING the ENVIRONMENT that is ESSENTIAL to our SURVIVAL!

This destructive "civilization" is responsible for our CURRENT global EXTINCTION event.

The "darker races" are living in harmony with the environment and therefore have a significantly HIGHER environmental IQ than the INFERIOR whites who are mindlessly DESTROYING what they need to survive.

 

We're ever so relieved!.... Now, are Democrats?