A number of years ago, I wrote a paper with Andrew Ryan, “A Critique of Race Mixing,”at http://www.alor.org/Race,%20Culture%20and%20Nation/A%20Critique%20of%20Race%20Mixing.htm. A critic we will call Mr Li, has noted that that paper quotes in one sentence states that studies of the IQs of mixed race white European Americans and African Americans have indicated that the mixed race offspring have a mean IQ between the two parent populations.
Mr Li then refers to a paper that I recently published “IQ is Incoherent,” and says, “If IQ tests are flawed, then why are you still using IQ?” Yes, I have to spend time answering such a question.
First, people’s positions change in the light of new evidence. Second, the first paper was written a number of years ago with a second person, and there is much more critical material about IQ today. Third, I, like most psychology researchers had never considered that there could be a mathematical refutation of IQ based on the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: K. J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1963); R. Routley, “On the Impossibility of an Orthodox Social Theory and of an Orthodox Solution to Environmental Problems,” Logique et Analyse, vol. 23, 1980, pp. 145-166; P. Bird, “The Impossibility of IQ,” Economics Letters, vol. 2, 1979, pp. 95-97. The sorts of rankings involved in broad IQ assessments of populations cannot be consistently made. Consequently, I believe that IQ is flawed. I did not think this when first studying psychology, but today I think the evidence is against IQ. So, I am not “still using IQ” Mr Li. Remember, China once worshipped Chairman Mao’s little red book, but now…wait let’s not go there…
These results also seem to follow from other research in psychology. A. Hampshire (et al.), “Fractioning Human Intelligence,” Neuron, vol. 76, 2012, pp. 1225-1237, challenged the notion that there exists a unitary concept of intelligence, a generalised intelligence g, as Spearman hypothesised. They conducted an online survey with 60,000 participants from across the world, of all races and nationalities, with more than a million data points. By use of principal component analysis ( See K. Pearson, “On Lines and Planes of Closest Fit to Systems of Points in Space,” Philosophical Magazine, vol. 2, 1901, pp. 559-572), it was examined if the body of data revealed an underlying component, g.
It was concluded that the observed variance in the intelligence data could only be explained with a minimum of three factors: short term memory, reasoning and the verbal factor: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/raise-your-iq-instantly.
It is arguable, I believe, that a fourth factor should be added: mathematical/spatial reasoning. But, in any case, this research team then conducted MRI procedures to study what is happening in the brain while conducting tests of intelligence, and it was found that three areas of the brain were involved. Thus, as a newspaper headline put it. “IQ Tests are ‘fundamentally Flawed’ and Using Them Alone to Measure Intelligence is a “Fallacy’…” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html. Of course, there is a long tradition of criticising IQ tests because they do not measure creativity: J. C. Kaufman, “ Why Creativity Isn’t in IQ Tests, Why it Matters, and Why it Won’t Change Anytime Soon Probably,” Journal of Intelligence, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 59-72.
Leading IQ researcher James Flynn, who is credited with the discovery of the “Flynn effect,” that of rising IQs over the 20th century (J. Flynn, “The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains from 1932 to 1978,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 95, 1984, pp. 29-51; “Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Test Really Measure,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 101, 1987, pp. 171-191), has formulated four paradoxes of intelligence, that arise from the Flynn effect:
1) The Factor Analysis Paradox: Factor analysis shows a first principal component called “g” or general intelligence that seems to bind performance on the various WISC subtests together. However, IQ gains over time show score gains on the WISC subtests occurring independently of one another. How can intelligence be both one and many?
(2) The Intelligence Paradox: If huge IQ gains are intelligence gains, why are we not stuck by the extraordinary subtlety of our children’s conversation? Why do we not have to make allowances for the limitations of our parents? A difference of some 18 points in the average IQ over two generations ought to be highly visible.
(3) The Mental Retardation Paradox: In 1900, the average IQ scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded.
(4) The Identical Twins Paradox: Twin studies show that genes dominate individual differences in IQ and that environmental effects are feeble. IQ gains are so great as to signal the existence of environmental factors of enormous potency. How can environment be both so feeble and so potent?” From: http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/about-us/directory/beyond-the-flynn-effect.
Flynn himself also sees these paradoxes collectively undermining the unified concept of g held by the likes of Richard Lynn, who is one of the heroes of the racial realists. Lynn holds that the Flynn effect is real, but thinks that it can be explained by better nutrition: R. Lynn, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, (Praeger, Westport, 1996), pp,. 109-110. Thus, nutrition is supposed to have resulted in an increase in brain weight (A. Miller and J. Corsellis, “Evidence for a Secular Increase in Human Brain Weight During the Past Century,” Annals of Human Biology, vol. 4, 1977, pp. 253-257).
Flynn in What is Intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 103-106, gives a concise refutation of the nutrition hypothesis. It is also interesting to note that Lynn is rather inconsistent on the nutrition and IQ issue, claiming that the effects of malnutrition on Aboriginal IQ is a “neglible effect of only 2 IQ points.” See R. Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence, (Washington Summit, 2006), p. 75. In fact, as I noted in my article criticised by Mr Li, another one of the paradoxes of intelligence must be the alleged low IQ scores of the Australian Aborigine (mean IQ 62), and sub-Saharan Africans (mean IQ 64, with 59 for Equatorial Guinea, p. 23) theses scores are at the imbecile level. For some odd reason these claims have not been roundly critiqued. While it is highly likely that the IQ tests themselves, or any kind of “test’ would be culturally biased to the hilt (try a test of surviving in the outback in summer without bottle water for two days against an Aborigine; the survivor has the higher IQ), even if they were not, it is paradoxical to suppose that a people at the imbecile level would even survive. But, survive they do, and these people are not morons, but sophisticated survivors in their environment. If that is not intelligence, then nothing is. Again, something must be fundamentally wrong with the very concept of IQ to generate these results.
Flynn’s intelligence paradox is based on the idea of rising intelligence, but some researchers have claimed that intelligence – as measured by visual reaction times – has decreased from the time of Queen Victoria by 14 IQ points: M. Woodley (et al.), “Were the Victorians Cleverer than Us? The Decline in General Intelligence Estimated from a Meta-analysis of the Slowing of Simple Reaction time,” Intelligence, vol. 41, 2013, pp. 843-850. Although this paper has been criticised, the authors have rigorously defended their position: Intelligence, vol. 46, 2014, pp. 131-147. For general discussions see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2323944/Were-Victorians-cleverer-Research-indicates-decline-brainpower-reflex-speed.html.
Many researchers believe that the Flynn effect has been just a blip in a decline in intelligence (these researchers all still hold to the conventional IQ analysis, so this position too is challenged if that is rejected) that has been occurring for some time: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html; http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/german_iq_free_fall_5_years_to_stability_threshold_germans_on_the_run_and_the_reasons-180605; H. Nyborg, “the Decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 53, 2012, pp. 118-125. It is quite possible that even the multivariate form of intelligence, not captured by IQ tests is falling, and that Western civilization is decaying in any case.
That should clarify my present thoughts on IQ. I did mention in my article that I would add some critical thoughts on the East Asian IQ superiority issue, which Mr Li I think supports. This is the same line pushed the likes of Richard Lynn, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance fame (which is supposed to be a pro-white magazine; imagine the Chinese publishing the equivalent putting their people in second place: Harold Isaacs, Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change, (Harvard University Press, 1989). Taylor argues that East Asians are “smarter” than whites, when all he can validly infer is that the alleged mean IQ differences is 5 points in East Asians favour: 105 (or 106 to 100). Lynn differs from this, originally putting the IQ of the chines living in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and china, at 110, with the median IQ for the Japanese in Japan at 103, and the median for East Asians living in North America at 103, but because this was “imprecise” (i.e. methodologically defective, not corrected for IQ score changes observed over time), he later went for a median IQ score for both the Chinese and Japanese of 103: R. J. Herrstein and C. Murray, the Bell curve, (Free press, New York, 1994), pp. 272-273. The mean white American IQ is on this view 101-102, but most like the nice 100 figure.
James Flynn sees the success of Asian-Americans not based on IQ, but because they are overachievers who work extraordinarily hard. He argues that Asian-Americans have the same non-verbal intelligence as whites, but a slightly lower verbal intelligence; J. Flynn, Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991); S. Sue and S. Okazaki, “Asian-American Educational Achievements; A Phenomenon in Search of an Explanation,” American Psychologist, vol. 45, 1990, pp. 913-920. Lynn, naturally sees an Asian superiority from the same data! R. lynn, “Oriental Americans: Their IQ, Educational Attainment and Socio-Economic Status,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 15, 237-242.
While there are other studies pushing the same line, a more recent research by A. Hsin and Y. Xie, “Explaining Asian American’s Academic Advantage Over Whites,” www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111, explains the success of East Asians due to greater academic effort, rather than to any advantages in cognitive abilities: A. Chua and J. Rubenfeld, The Triple Package, (Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 170-174. The supposed racial differences seen by Lynn, are, if they exist at all, due to environmental factors, they contend. I would add that a big factor, is that Asians are not facing the genocidal assault that the elites are making on whites through an undermining of their culture.
If racism explains the black-white intelligence gap, then white genocide explains the East Asian-white gap.