July 18, 2012

"Race, IQ, and Wealth"

Ron Unz has a big article in The American Conservative on a perennially interesting and important subject:
Race, IQ, and Wealth 
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject 
By RON UNZ • July 18, 2012 
At the end of April, Charles Kenny, a former World Bank economist specializing in international development, published a blistering attack in Foreign Policy entitled “Dumb and Dumber,” with the accusatory subtitle “Are development experts becoming racists?” Kenny charged that a growing number of development economists were turning towards genetic and other intrinsic human traits as a central explanation of national economic progress, often elevating these above the investment and regulatory issues that have long been the focus of international agencies. 
Although Kenny suggested that many of his targets had been circumspect in how they raised these highly controversial ideas, he singled out IQ and the Wealth of Nations, published in 2001 by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, as a particularly extreme and hateful example of this trend. These authors explicitly argue that IQ scores for different populations are largely fixed and hereditary, and that these—rather than economic or governmental structures—tend to determine the long-term wealth of a given country. 
Kenny claimed that such IQ theories were not merely racist and deeply offensive but had also long been debunked by scientific experts—notably the prominent biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1980 book The Mismeasure of Man.

Read the whole thing there.

180 comments:

Anonymous said...

What Stephen Jay Gould did for Science is what Freud did for Psychology...

Discard said...

Last August 10 or 11, the Los Angeles Times ran an article, which closed with a quote from a couple scientists, saying that Steven J. Gould was a "charlatan".
This is the "unbiased" reporter's hands off way of saying what they really think. Science reporters know that Blacks are dumb, and they're trying to tell us about it.

sunbeam said...

I was going to make a post here with some comments about where some of these successful immigrants wound up, but it turns out at the very end the author covered it lightly.

"As it happens, Americans of Greek and South Slav origins are considerably above most other American whites in both family income and educational level."

"When the early waves of Catholic Irish immigrants reached America near the middle of the 19th century, they were widely seen as particularly ignorant and uncouth and aroused much hostility from commentators of the era, some of whom suggested that they might be innately deficient in both character and intelligence. But they advanced economically at a reasonable pace, and within less than a century had become wealthier and better educated than the average white American, including those of “old stock” ancestry."

It's discussed at the end, but certain parts of this country have never really been well off or successful. The Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast (well LA and SF for most of our history) have been the areas of productivity and wealth creation in this country.

As far as Texas goes, without all that oil, and the fact it became the epicenter of the oil industry, I can't see that it would have been any more successful than any of the Southern states, except for the fact it has a Western character as well.

Look the rural areas of this country have always lagged behind, and at this point look like they always will. As a Southerner, I can tell you that the South had problems beyond the normal issues of rural America.

Race might have been the origin of it, but this place ... it's more like the rest of the country now, but it was very different from the rest of America even as recently as my childhood. The sheer disdain and lack of interest in education is probably the biggest thing. And wherever, however, it started, I can tell you white Southerners internalized it with gusto.

It almost seems like that aspect of Southern culture has spread to the nation as a whole now.

I might note, I believe I've read that as recently as the 1960's blacks from the North scored higher on the SAT than Southern whites.

It just seems to me that the Slavs, the Greeks, and the Irish (post 1800 waves) wound up in sections of the country where it was much easier to become successful.

Anonymous said...

Unz mentioned Gould's fraud. A couple of weeks ago while going through a Barnes & Noble I looked at the science shelves. They had more volumes there by Gould than by any other single author. These shelves are filled with pop sci stuff, mostly. Think of all the other famous authors of pop sci books - Steven Hawking, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Gould is still posthumously beating all of them. Milli Vanilli are gone completely though. I think one of them even killed himself. Which field of human endeavor would you expect to take fraud more seriously, which field has always seemed sleazier to you, the music business or the human sciences? It's a lesson, I think. A teachable moment.

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

Seems to me that the differences between measured IQs of East vs West Germans and New York vs Israeli Jews could partly be explained by self selection. The higher IQ groups had the *intelligence* to escape the communists and/or the Nazis.

Karl said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but Unz seems bizarrely to be discounting the hereditarian view altogether for intelligence and instead seems to be peddling Boasian Cultural Marxism. Am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

Unz tries to pull the old trick of Noel "we must destroy the white race" Ignatiev of equating the Irish with all other minority groups. Let's call this the "Ignatiev Fallacy."

Notice how Unz conveniently avoids any discussion of black IQ?

And notice how Unz conveniently avoids any discussion of the fact the Irish are white Europeans but nearly all Mexicans are Amerindian or Mestizo?

Anonymous said...

iq testig in the soviet block? sometimes it is the system that matters.

Anonymous said...

Unrelated question:

Why are both Mangan's and OneSTDV's blogs now both private?

Hapalong Cassidy said...

Speaking of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", I'm of the opinion that had North Korea been included in that study, they would have had by the largest negative correlation between wealth and IQ. In fact, nobody else would have even been close.

DR said...

"Kenny charged that a growing number of development economists were turning towards genetic and other intrinsic human traits as a central explanation of national economic progress, often elevating these above the investment and regulatory issues that have long been the focus of international agencies."

Population IQ and economic policy are mostly two sides of the same coin. Countries with lower IQs have worse economic policies. Countries with low IQs and politically open democracies tend to have the worse economic policies.

Low IQs population, particularly a low IQ electorate, lead to unfree markets which leads to poverty. This basically explains the whole effect. The direct impact of IQ on wealth is much weaker then it's mediating impact on economic policy.

This is demonstrated by the fact that statistics show that the IQ of your country has much more effect on your per capita income than your own IQ. It's also demonstrated by the fact that countries that buck the trend, like high-IQ countries with unfree markets , like North Korea, are poor, and free-market low-IQ countries, like the Bahamas, are rich.

FredR said...

For some reason I just assumed that, like with the His-Panic article, you wouldn't comment on this.

Anonymous said...

Unz mentions how Greeks have low IQs in Greece, but above average IQs in America. I think I have a simple explanation for this. As my dad from Greece used to say, "all the industrious Greeks left." This is probably the case for some of the other immigrant groups as well.

DaveinHackensack said...

Somewhat related, Ann Coulter seems to be reading Steve Sailer.

Anonymous said...

The biggest weakness of the NeoMarxist thugs who currently watch over us, is the blatant falsehoods which they require us to worship.

Since they do not believe in Objective Truth, it is of little consequence to them whether these blandishments (blank slatism, human equality, race-does-not-exist, etc) are actually true or not, since for them Power is the goal and not scientific reality.

But for most sentient people (ie those actually run society day-to-day, and whose allegiance is vital to any power-elite) scientific facts do matter; and when the truth can no longer be denied, there will be serious consequences.

Aside from the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there will be a steady stream of apostates from the Religion of Political Correctness, and an eventual widespread acknowledgement that it is a suicide cult.

That is why the Hard Left now has to patrol the boundaries of scientific knowledge, a task for which it is singularly ill-equipped.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Unz mentions how Greeks have low IQs in Greece, but above average IQs in America. I think I have a simple explanation for this. As my dad from Greece used to say, "all the industrious Greeks left." This is probably the case for some of the other immigrant groups as well.

I suspect the reverse for Scandinavia. The dummies, jocks, and rednecks are the ones who left. The smarties stayed behind and created an unequalled social system that, for obvious reasons, was impossible to duplicate anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that black Africans are left entirely by a man who claims to dislike scientists who skew their arguments in favor of political biases. Also, haven't IQ tests been "improved" by deephasizing the mathematic challenges of the test, which are more difficult, which might contribute to the Flynn effect to a degree? There seem to be a lot of negative variables floating around in his essay that should have been acknowledged.

Anonymous said...

Anyone looking at how different ethnic groups do in the real world when taken out of their home countries could see how there are huge problems with the Lynn IQ data.

Indians are supposedly dolts, yet even peasant Indians and their descendants do well in the United States as small business owners and dominate the hell out of places like Fiji.

And levantine Arabs are supposedly as dumb or dumber than Mexicans and South Americans, yet are a dominant merchant caste and high achievers all across latin America.

Luke Lea said...

Well, this is a subject dear to the hearts of iSteve readers. It will be interesting to see what they think of Unz's analysis. Personally I couldn't get to the end of it.

Anonymous said...

This new article by Rindermann titled "Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability" is interesting:

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/haprinderm.pdf

Luke Lea said...

I'd like to see Jason Malloy address Unz analysis of the issue. He has the necessary skills and the knowledge to do a good job. Is Unz special pleading? Is he setting up straw men? Is he being willfully obtuse? Or is he making some powerful points? Though I have my suspicioins I don't really know.

Svigor said...

Kenny claimed that such IQ theories were not merely racist and deeply offensive but had also long been debunked by scientific experts—notably the prominent biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1980 book The Mismeasure of Man.

Haha. That's like saying Morris Dees is the model for how to run a charity. The press may quote both with a straight face but that just reflects poorly on the press; they're debasing their own coinage.

Svigor said...

Unz mentioned Gould's fraud. A couple of weeks ago while going through a Barnes & Noble I looked at the science shelves. They had more volumes there by Gould than by any other single author. These shelves are filled with pop sci stuff, mostly. Think of all the other famous authors of pop sci books - Steven Hawking, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Gould is still posthumously beating all of them. Milli Vanilli are gone completely though. I think one of them even killed himself. Which field of human endeavor would you expect to take fraud more seriously, which field has always seemed sleazier to you, the music business or the human sciences? It's a lesson, I think. A teachable moment.

Great comment. Haha, human sciences are sleazier than the music business - I'm definitely going to use that.

Svigor said...

Anyone looking at how different ethnic groups do in the real world when taken out of their home countries could see how there are huge problems with the Lynn IQ data.

Indians are supposedly dolts, yet even peasant Indians and their descendants do well in the United States as small business owners and dominate the hell out of places like Fiji.

And levantine Arabs are supposedly as dumb or dumber than Mexicans and South Americans, yet are a dominant merchant caste and high achievers all across latin America.


And both groups are intensely racist. Maybe racism is economically adaptive, like I've been saying here forever?

Matra said...

I only got half way into but this statement stood out to me:

Austria and Croatia are just a couple of dozen miles apart, both are Catholic countries that spent centuries as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it is quite difficult to distinguish Austrians from Croatians either by appearance or by genetic testing.

I don't know about genetic testing but I've observed physical differences between Croatians and Austrians. OK, they are both white and the average person looks fairly similar but Croatia has noticeably more exceptionally tall people than does Austria whilst light features are more common in Austria. Croats are also more likely to have "Mediterranean" facial features. Perhaps regional differences within Croatia matter here?

Dirk said...

IQ and the Wealth of Nations is just a really shoddy shitty article from a technical standpoint. The various IQ tests it is based on are often from tiny and non-representative populations using all sorts of different tests and test anministration methods.

Unz is absolutely right that the massive, often full SD differences between very similar populations, and within the same country within short intervals of time are implausible on their face, and just one of many signs the authors are incapable of performing meta analysis.

There are many very insightful articles written by politically incorrect academics, but this one was trash. Unz's description of it as an "own goal" is apt. There are plenty of strong studies showing group IQ differences. This one is so bad it provides a nice strawman that IQ egalitarians can happily beat. In this sense Unz, increasingly sympathetic to egalitarianism, is being unsportsmanlike especially since he knows of stronger group comparison studies, such as public school standardized tests. Or indeed Steve's own citation of California school district statistics on many posts.

Dirk said...

Unz's criticisms of Lynn were also made many years ago by the deleted blog feministx.

Whether she was another half sigma alt I can't be sure, or perhaps someone inspired by his example. HS's admitted alt he wrote as a parody of aspie right-lbertarian culture, while the quality of feminist X's work was often superb.

Dahlia said...

That was a major bomb dropped into the Steveosphere. If Unz is correct, this has major, MAJOR, implications and challenges many premises and assumptions.

Ron Unz said:
"This strong empirical evidence of the apparent malleability of IQ scores raises interesting questions about the possible mechanism involved...This scientific puzzle probably has a close connection to the well-known Flynn Effect, first widely publicized by Lynn..."

I will proffer an observation. I believe the rise in autism-spectrum disorders stems from, or plays some role, in the rising IQs: they need to be considered together.

I don't understand the mechanisms either, but I suspect epigenetics as the people seem to be born with a fixed intelligence and brain wiring, or at least it is noticeable before gadgets and modernity could have theoretically primed them.

It's funny, our world changed so very rapidly as we participated in the electronic, automobile, space, and cyberspace ages and we just happen to be giving birth to people in the process of adapting to such a world with increased intelligence and object orientation AND WE DO NOT LINK THE TWO THINGS.

Anonymous said...

"Also, haven't IQ tests been "improved" by deephasizing the mathematic challenges of the test, which are more difficult, which might contribute to the Flynn effect to a degree? "

iirc a paper posted on this site in comments showed that Flynn effect operated on the right end of the bell-curve too and that the improvemetns in the maths section drove it while the verbal scores remained flat.
One of the causes, as the recently tlaked of "women higher IQ" articles might be that the gender-equality brigade tries to bring girls' scores upto boys where girls lag while letting the vice versa cases be explained away as due to natural causes, one of them being the lackadaisical attitude of young boys towards their studies.

"Since they do not believe in Objective Truth, it is of little consequence to them whether these blandishments (blank slatism, human equality, race-does-not-exist, etc) are actually true or not, since for them Power is the goal and not scientific reality."

"In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals. In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. ....
As a series of strategic interventions into patriarchal discourses, feminist theory doesn't simply aim to reveal what is "wrong" with, or false about patriarchal theories - i.e. at replacing one "truth" with another. It aims to render patriarchal system, methods and presumptions unable to function, unable to retain their dominance and power."

Anonymous said...

"...the rise in autism-spectrum disorders..."

Diagnosing anything psychiatric is so subjective, such a subject to fads, that I wouldn't read anything into such statistics. I'd trust stereotypes more. Is there a public perception that people are getting nerdier, spazzier on average? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

"I suspect the reverse for Scandinavia. The dummies, jocks, and rednecks are the ones who left."

Didn't they have eugenics programs, I've read that it continued in Sweden well into the 60s. Might explain the never-ending parade of blonde beauties.

A quick search shows that it continued well into the 70s:
Two years ago, an investigative reporter uncovered the policy carried out between 1936 and 1976 of forcibly sterilising women considered socially unfit.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so compare a entries from Unz's Table to Appendex 1 of Lynn and Vanhanen (2006). Each is the date-sorted IQ score per country.

Argentina
Unz: 93,98
L&V: 93,98,93

France
Unz: 96.5,102.5,94
L&V: 97,102,94,98

Greece
Unz: 88,95
L&V: 88,97,95,89,92

Ireland
Unz: 87,98
L&V: 87,97,93,91

So in each of these cases, the missing data points seem to be problematic for Unz's thesis.

Many of the irregular IQs Unz cites comes the study by Buj (1981) that seemed to produce almost random IQ values, seemingly due to limited geographic sampling.

A multivariate analysis of the entire data would seem to be required to support the kind of conclusion Unz would like to make. Are the examples he cites expected deviations, perhaps explained by sampling issues with individual studies, or do they represent a real trend?

Marlo said...

IQ tests measure intelligence among people who were raised in similar environments. The more similar the environment, the more test score differentials reflect differences in innate intelligence. That is a fact.

Discard wrote:

"This is the "unbiased" reporter's hands off way of saying what they really think. Science reporters know that Blacks are dumb, and they're trying to tell us about it."

Most people, black or white, liberal or conservative, don't believe that blacks, on average, are as intelligent as whites or asians. Some people espouse the idea that this is because of genetics, while others attribute it to environment. The latter position is more evident. For example the study by Tzuriel & Kaufman shows a group of Ethiopian immigrants to Israel closing the IQ gap with the country at large.Kozulin showed the same result.

Moreover, Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians)have lower IQs than African Americans. Likewise, Gypsies ("caucasians") in Britain have lower IQs than British Caribbeans. How do yawl explain this?

The HBD mantra of "IQ differences are fixed," is simply false. Most often, when adherents of HBD are prompted to cite peer-reviewed studies supporting this claim, they respond with a statement along the lines of "the liberal establishment won't allow politically incorrect papers to be published." No evidence for that either.

Moving on. The idea that growth is impossible when population grows faster than per capita GNP is widely accepted among Economists. Once the oil reserves dry up and foreign aid is cut, government officials in African countries will take measures to reduce their populations. They won't have a choice.

Currently, about 5 of the fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa. Of course, much of this growth is superficial for non-aristocrats. Living conditions for average Africans will remain low for a period of time. But not permanently.

McGillicuddy said...

There is a fair amount of intra-European variation in these results, some of it seeming to have no relation to genetic differences at all, but they do form an obviously racial cluster, distinct from that of others. And after having been raised in the U.S., Mexicans score the low-end of the white range (Unz seems to imply that they will converge with the white average, but that is a leap of faith). Nothing new.

As an aside, the Irish actually have the lowest incomes of major white ethnic groups, and are the most likely to be on welfare according to the 2010 census, and self-described English-Americans are least likely. Of course, the Anglo profile would likely look a lot worse if so many of the less-desirable among them did not classify themselves as the American ethnicity, meanwhile under-class whites all over the country love over-emphasizing their Irishness.

American factfinder's social indicators section is teeming with information on ethnic behavior, broken down to the smallest geographical unit, perhaps in the future Steve could analyze relative ethnic achievement in terms of education and income by geographic area. In most places WASPS hold a slight edge relative to other whites, and the Irish a slight disadvantage, and the historical reasons for this seem largely obvious, but in some places it is different. In New England and Virginia of all places, the situation is reversed. While in New York, Alaska, and Texas, the WASP advantage is more pronounced than is true elsewhere. Why? Oil wealth and old money? Why do Italians do best relative to other area whites in places where there aren't a lot of Italians? Why are New England Germans so rich? Tons of fun stuff to consider.

Terry said...

Steve's readers perhaps need this corrective to hyper-heriditarianism. Having said that, because Unz concentrates on Whites, he can avoid more politically sensitive issues about other racial groups.

While the data suggests there may be a 15-20 point IQ range, its probable that each group has its own range, which depends on the material conditions of the surrounding culture. African blacks and US blacks may have a range of 70-90 which it dependent on whether or not they live in an modern industrial country. Even this is problematic however, since many more US blacks live in poverty. Who can say which is a more intellectually stimulating environment - poor rural Irish of 40 years ago, or Atlanta blacks? They have roughly the same IQ.

IQs are not cast in brass, so I would not be surprised if this range changes for each generation within a population group.

Difference Maker said...

Terry said...
Steve's readers perhaps need this corrective to hyper-heriditarianism

Who can say which is a more intellectually stimulating environment - poor rural Irish of 40 years ago, or Atlanta blacks? They have roughly the same IQ.


If I had an 'intellectually stimulating environment' I could be a connected financial hotshot millionaire. Could they? Could you?


IQs are not cast in brass, so I would not be surprised if this range changes for each generation within a population group.

So why haven't they changed?

You might familiarize yourself with the fundamental constant of sociology. And 90 IQ is still garbage.

Camlost said...

I might note, I believe I've read that as recently as the 1960's blacks from the North scored higher on the SAT than Southern whites.

No way that's true.

Difference Maker said...

Most people, black or white, liberal or conservative, don't believe that blacks, on average, are as intelligent as whites or asians. Some people espouse the idea that this is because of genetics, while others attribute it to environment. The latter position is more evident.

It's quite obviously not. Inequality is unavoidable. One can see variation in siblings of the same family.


Moreover, Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians)have lower IQs than African Americans. Likewise, Gypsies ("caucasians") in Britain have lower IQs than British Caribbeans. How do yawl explain this?


They are low IQ populations of course, being very different from east asians and native british. How do you explain it?


The HBD mantra of "IQ differences are fixed," is simply false. Most often, when adherents of HBD are prompted to cite peer-reviewed studies supporting this claim, they respond with a statement along the lines of "the liberal establishment won't allow politically incorrect papers to be published." No evidence for that either.

No one has time for your shrill masturbatory claims. Control yourself please.

...government officials in African countries will take measures to reduce their populations. They won't have a choice...

...Living conditions for average Africans will remain low for a period of time. But not permanently.


Of course. Mmhmm, I see. So neat and tidy. What a wonderful fantasy

Luke Lea said...

Unz's remark about Israeli IQ's is willfully ignorant obviously. He knows the difference between Ashkenazis and Mizrahis, one from Europe the other from the Middle East, who score quite differently on IQ tests and all other indices of educational and socio-economic achievement. I have to conclude he is being insincere.

hbd chick said...

ron apparently said (i haven't read the article): "Austria and Croatia are just a couple of dozen miles apart, both are Catholic countries that spent centuries as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it is quite difficult to distinguish Austrians from Croatians either by appearance or by genetic testing."

ron needs to get up to speed on his genetics.

Anonymous said...

Unz comically seems to imply that Mexicans are just another group of whites. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From list:

"According to the CIA World Fact Book, Mexico is:

60% mestizo
30% Amerindian
Less than 10% European (mostly Spaniard)


And what is the ancestry of mestizos? Examining genetic ancestral markers, Rubén Lisker has found lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be:

59% Amerindian
34% European [mostly Spaniard]
and 6% black"



When discovered by Europeans, these Amerindians were still in the stone age.

Anonymous said...

"Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians)"

Wrong. Amerindians underwent at least 12,000 years of their own selection, while East Asians underwent separate selection. 10,000 years ago or so North Asians turned to agriculture. Amerindians did not. Amerindians were still in the stone age when discovered by Europeans.

Thomas said...

Unz's transformation to Boasian Cultural Marxism does seem complete.

Notice that his argument, that just a little more money spent, will fix everything, is no different than what your typical blank slatists argue. Unz's recent private war against the hereditarian model dovetails nicely with Boasian Cultural Marxism, where now Unz is left with naked Boasian culturalism.

Make sure you fact check the article. Unz's His-Panic article was riddled with factual errors, which Jason Richwine found. Not that Unz cares much for the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Like Boas, Gould or Lewontin, Unz is primarily in the business of setting public opinion, not truth searching. (It's funny that Unz criticizes Gould when he's basically engaged in the same tactics -- see the criticism of his His-Panic article.)

So, Unz now prescribes culturalism for the goy. I doubt that privately Unz denies that there is a hereditarian aspect to Ashkenazi intelligence. But that's not the Goy's concern. For the goy: culturalism. The goy need not think about hereditarian matters. It's dangerous. It's 1939. End of story.

Toddy Cat said...

"Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians"

Anyone who claims that American Indians and East Asians are "indistinguishable" is deranged. Full stop. Go back to reading your Gould and Lewontin.

Georgia Resident said...

"Once the oil reserves dry up and foreign aid is cut, government officials in African countries will take measures to reduce their populations. They won't have a choice."
I foresee mass slaughters coupled with bromides about how Europeans have an "obligation" to let in refugees from these countries.

"Moreover, Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians)have lower IQs than African Americans"
It's ironic that you castigate Stevosphere commenters for not backing up claims with sources, after making these two incredible claims with no sources to back either up. The figures I know of typically have American Indian IQ somewhere between white and black IQ, despite American Indian tribals living in worse poverty and having a greater tendency to alcoholism than blacks. It should be noted that between American Indian tribes in the US, there is significant genetic variation, with each tribe typically having different amounts of European and African admixture.

And gypsies, who are originally from India, are not "white" by even fairly expansive definitions. If anything, that they perform poorly in western countries seems to lend support to the Lynn and Vanhanen data for India.

Anonymous said...

Another too clever by half analysis by Ron Unz. In his analysis of US Italian immigrants he omits to mention that nearly half of them went back to the old country when their dreams didn't pan out. Obviously, the Italians who stayed were mostly from the right side of the Sicilian Bell curve. But pointing that out to Unz wouldn't due much good. This is the guy who thinks the cure to Mexican underachievement is teaching them English. How's that working out in California these days? Sending the dumb ones home instead of setting them up in Section 8 housing to breed would have been far more effective than eliminating bilingual education.

But Ron never lets stubborn things like facts change his mind. He just contrives some elaborate, long winded pseudo-argument to repackage the data, then declares he is the expert, not the guys who spent 40 years doing the research. Unz has really jumped the shark, here. Any day now he'll be spotted wandering around downtown Palo Alto with a shopping cart fishing empty cans and bottles out of the municipal trash containers.

Anonymous said...

Unz writes .." it is generally acknowledged that some people are smarter than other people, and this almost syllogistically raises the possibility that some peoples may be smarter than other peoples."


I'm not sure how Unz squares this with his desire for open borders.

Anonymous said...

Notice that Unz is not a practicing scientist but a magazine publisher. Most of his articles involve cherry picking of data to shape public opinion. Unz's method is not one of the disinterested pursuit of knowledge but of marking the parameters of acceptable thought.

Georgia Resident said...

I am doubtful of the Unz claim that the urban-rural gap is larger than the White-Black gap. IIRC, Project Talent showed pretty impressive numbers for states in the Upper Plains (very white, very Germanic, very rural), and not-so-very impressive numbers for a lot of highly urban states. And, of course, being more likely to live in urban areas than whites hasn't made blacks into intellectual superstars. The spoiler for rural states seems to be the South, where whites do indeed do worse than whites elsewhere. Even then, the difference between the south, which averages around the mid 90s, and other states, in the low 100s, is still less than the nationwide black-white gap.

Also, what is the validity of wordsum? Isn't it basically a vocabulary test? I can easily see how it could overstate or understate gaps between different subsets of the population. Rural and semi-rural folks like my "redneck" neighbors in the south might have a lot of practical skills related to intelligence (they can typically fix a lot more stuff on their own than "sophisticated" transplant northerners like myself) that aren't reflected on wordsum, while loquacious blacks, especially if they come from middle-class backgrounds, would probably get a boost from wordsum.

This seems plausible to me, because overall my IQ profile is very "black", with respect to how different subsets skew. According to an IQ test administered when I was ten, I have very high verbal skills (like wordsum, the test has a significant vocabulary component), and based on that alone I would have an IQ of 146. My nonverbal and spatial scores are 114 and 117, respectively, and my overall IQ came out to 124 (I don't think they were weighted equally). This is backed up by my SAT scores (780 verbal, 660 Math), and would seem to be a fair estimate of my overall intelligence.

Obviously, I don't mean this anecdote to disprove the overall correlation between IQ and vocabulary, just to point out that it's not an absolute between individuals, and probably not between specific subsets of groups.

Severn said...

Furthermore, although Greeks and Turks have a bitter history of ethnic and political conflict, modern studies have found them to be genetically almost indistinguishable, and a very large 1992 study of Turkish schoolchildren put their mean IQ at 90, lending plausibility to the low Greek figure. We also discover rather low IQ scores in all the reported samples of Greece’s impoverished Balkan neighbors in the Eastern Bloc taken before the collapse of Communism. Croatians scored 90 in 1952, two separate tests of Bulgarians in 1979–1982 put their IQs at 91–94, and Romanians scored 94 in 1972. While the low scores of the Croatian children might be partly explained by malnutrition and other physical hardships experienced during the difficult years of World War II, such an excuse seems less plausible for other Balkan populations tested decades after the war, all of which seem to score in the same range.


Two samples of Poles from 1979 and 1989 provided widely divergent mean IQs of 106 and 92, with the low Polish figure of 92 coming from a huge sample of over 4000 children tested with “Progressive Matrices,” supposedly one of the most culturally-independent methods. On the other hand, more economically advanced Communist countries in Central Europe often had considerably higher scores, with the Slovaks testing at 96 in 1983, the Czechs scoring 96–98 in 1979–1983, and the Hungarians reaching 99 in 1979.



This was all discussed in some detail at Mangan's blog over a year ago. (What happened to that blog, btw?)

Yes, the data in "IQ And The Wealth Of Nations" is of poor quality. It does not follow that better quality data does not exist though. Rindermann obtained excellent data by looking at PISA scores. And the high quality studies largely confirm what Ln found.


So we are left with strong evidence that in the early 1970s, the Irish IQ averaged 87..


Unz continues to sound remarkably like commenter RKU.

As I pointed out to RKU at the time, there is no good evidence that the Irish IQ ever averaged 87. Rindermann found the Irish IQ to be 100, exactly what we would expect from a white European people.

Unz/RKU cannot simultaneously note that the data Lynn provides is of very poor quality, and also cite that very same data as the corner-stone of his "the Irish used to have the same IQ as poor brown people and see how much smarter they have gotten!" schtick.

Anonymous said...

Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians)have lower IQs than African Americans. Likewise, Gypsies ("caucasians") in Britain have lower IQs than British Caribbeans. How do yawl explain this?


If you think that Native Americans have DNA "which is indistinguishable from East Asians", you really need to read more and comment less.

Camlost said...

Currently, about 5 of the fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa. Of course, much of this growth is superficial for non-aristocrats. Living conditions for average Africans will remain low for a period of time. But not permanently.

Yes, when the Chinese have completed their takeover of African economies you will see the standard of living there start to rise. But that's the only way any improvement will come for Africa.

Georgia Resident said...

Also, the assumption of genetic uniformity across Europe, or between Euro peoples and their immigrant cousins, is not necessarily sound.

Even comparatively minute differences in genes can lead to sizeable phenotypic differences, especially if genes and environment interact in ways that accentuate these differences. Even among the founding stock settlers, there were significant differences that are reflected in regional differences today (cue Albion's Seed).

It's also notable that relatively poor, low HDI countries in Eastern Europe (Serbia was the worst, at 89, in the Lynn-Vanhanen study) outscore the few high-HDI black countries like Barbados (80 in the Lynn-Vanhanen study). The proviso concerning the difference between the causes of intra- and inter-group variations applies here. Euro populations could vary significantly between each other based on environment, and Afro populations could also differ based on environment, Euro and Afro populations overall could differ in large part due to genetics.

I think the most compelling evidence for the B-W IQ gap being genetic, at least in the US, is the lack of a "fat" right tail in American black IQs, which we would expect to see if overall scores were dragged down by environment, but some blacks who were lucky had okay environments and thus got a boost relative to other blacks. Instead, it looks roughly like the white bell curve, but with a lower mean IQ.

Finally, it's possible that genetic factors that do not directly affect innate intelligence do have an indirect effect via their effects on the environment individuals create for themselves. For example, this post

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/how-much-hard-evidence-do-you-need/

details a study on a gene that may affect the tendency towards educational attainment. While it may not directly affect intelligence (a high dopamine index on its own doesn't make people stupid), if we assume that people can affect their environment in ways that also affect their expressed intelligence, such as the pastimes they pursue, a high dopamine index could drag down their IQ, and have a real effect on life achievement as well.

Oddly enough, the author of the blog I cited identifies himself as black*, meaning Half Sigma's wish has apparently come true.

*part-Jamaican and part-Chinese.

Anonymous said...

Who can say which is a more intellectually stimulating environment - poor rural Irish of 40 years ago, or Atlanta blacks? They have roughly the same IQ.


There is no evidence to suggest that poor rural Irish of forty years ago had an IQ comparable to that of Atlanta blacks.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about IQ, but in terms of success, Unz's argument about the benefits of city living seem correct.

The English built US cities, their schools, libraries, and museums, and then fled before immigrant Jews and other ethnics who reaped those benefits as well as the general benefits of living in the cities which include being close to the action.

Also, English, German, Scandinavian young people subsequently avoided cities, again leaving the city benefits to others.

Possibly the Internet can compensate for this lack of access; I'm not sure.

Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

Lynn reports average scores computed from several different studies for each country in order to reduce measurement error that is apparent in many individual studies. This is based on sound psychometric logic: aggregation tends to cancel out the noise and amplify the signal. Unz, in contrast, cherry-picks individual studies and makes up ad hoc explanations for the imaginary trends in them, thus amplifying the noise and drowning out the signal.

Perspective said...

It seems that under certain economic/social conditions IQ can rise to a certain 'group' potential and then plateau. This is not unexpected or surprising in the least IMO. French Canadians are fairly good example of this. They are largely descendents of French peasants and farmers and according to the latest PISA results in maths scored as high or near that of many East Asians countries/regions.
'Redneck' Alberta, also did quite well.

http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/eecd_pisabrochE.pdf

Severn said...

As an aside, the Irish actually have the lowest incomes of major white ethnic groups, and are the most likely to be on welfare according to the 2010 census, and self-described English-Americans are least likely. Of course, the Anglo profile would likely look a lot worse if so many of the less-desirable among them did not classify themselves as the American ethnicity, meanwhile under-class whites all over the country love over-emphasizing their Irishness.



I don't see any evidence to support that claim. The median household income of Irish-Americans, whose lower-class members supposedly love calling themselves Irish-American, is $58,634.

The median household income of English-Americans, whose lower-class elements supposedly describe themselves as just "American", is $59,141, an insignificant difference from that of the Irish.

The data from the ACS suggests that it is the higher income members of every group who are hyphenated Americans, and that the lower class whites (of all ethnic backgrounds) are people who have lost their roots and become plain "Americans".

In other words, America is the sort of country where it is highly advantageous to be a participating member in a "minority" group - the smaller the group the better.

The median household income of Greek-Americans is $64,227.

Anonymous said...

"Race might have been the origin of it, but this place ... it's more like the rest of the country now, but it was very different from the rest of America even as recently as my childhood. The sheer disdain and lack of interest in education is probably the biggest thing. And wherever, however, it started, I can tell you white Southerners internalized it with gusto.

It almost seems like that aspect of Southern culture has spread to the nation as a whole now.

I might note, I believe I've read that as recently as the 1960's blacks from the North scored higher on the SAT than Southern whites."

I disagree. Many southerners traditionally enjoyed certain aspects of education such as literature, art or history. They are just terribly unproductive and unpractical in their interests. But I would not say there was altogether a disregard for education.

And as for Northern blacks scoring higher on the SATs? There are probably selection factors at work to explain that (if it is true at all)

Anonymous said...

I don't know about genetic testing but I've observed physical differences between Croatians and Austrians.

Croatian women look like Katie Holmes, just as tall and skinny, but with higher cheekbones.

Austrian men look like short dumpy Tom Cruise. (Not Arnold Schwarzenegger; he's an atypical fluke.)

Dahlia said...

"Is there a public perception that people are getting nerdier, spazzier on average? I don't think so."

Simon Baron-Cohen has been obsessed with a premise we all take for granted: that there has been a rise in these disorders. The only question is why.

Silver said...

This comment of mine was considered too racy to approve.

"As for Unz’s article, there’s enough there to cast doubt on the “strong pessimist” interpretation of IQ, wealth, race and immigration, but not nearly enough to rebut the general hbd view.

I was particularly disheartened by this passage

with the only obvious solution being a strong eugenics program, presumably including sterilization of a substantial fraction of the population.

You presume far too much, Ron. There is not the slightest need to madly rush into a mass sterilization program if one takes a favorable view of eugenic measures — a ‘eugenic outlook on life,’ let’s call it. It’s about building for the future, not about feverishly lashing out at the vulnerable . The saddest thing is that in the privacy of your own thoughts you probably agree that some form of ‘neo-eugenics’ is the one great hope, so why you gratuitously poo-poo it yourself when there are legions of marxoids only too willing to do it for you is something of a mystery."

Dahlia said...

Re: Unz not discussing black IQ.

In the sidebar, "The East Asian Exception", Unz posits that there is a large IQ range amongst whites because we are not as robust and healthy as Asians; Asians can undergo deprivation and hardly be affected.

That should answer any questions. Unz is a smart man. He will not discuss it.

Anonymous said...

Komment Kontrol seems to be in overdrive lately. No wonder there are so few comments on your posts.

Anonymous said...

In the sidebar, "The East Asian Exception", Unz posits that there is a large IQ range amongst whites because we are not as robust and healthy as Asians; Asians can undergo deprivation and hardly be affected.


That should answer any questions. Unz is a smart man.


I don't see how the information provided in sentence one can possibly lead you to the conclusion: "Unz is a smart man". It seems to suggest that Unz is just one more garden-variety anti-white liberal bigot.

Anonymous said...

"Native Americans (whose DNA is indistinguishable from East Asians"

The alcoholism rates are very distinguishable.

Silver said...

Lynn reports average scores computed from several different studies for each country in order to reduce measurement error that is apparent in many individual studies. This is based on sound psychometric logic: aggregation tends to cancel out the noise and amplify the signal. Unz, in contrast, cherry-picks individual studies and makes up ad hoc explanations for the imaginary trends in them, thus amplifying the noise and drowning out the signal.

Not really. Nothing Unz did in that article was particularly egregious.

I'd like to believe you about Lynn, but seriously, just averaging two studies and treating the resulting number as sacrosanct -- which he has had a tendency to do -- is a bit much. This tendency is especially marked in those who quote his numbers. I'm not sure if you visit many ethnic boards, but people there will go to war over a one point difference in Lynn's number.

Anonymous said...

Nothing Unz did in that article was particularly egregious


Unz does cherry-pick data and construct large arguments based on the result. In the linked article his entire case rests on one IQ study of Irish school-children, the exact details of which are unknown to me and to Unz.

He uses that one study to argue that there exists a "Super Flynn Effect" which converts poor and low IQ people (Hispanics) into people with an IQ of 100.

There is no scientific basis for such an argment.

TGGP said...

I criticized Unz in the comments at his article, so I don't need to do so further. I will point out that Unz isn't completely throwing out hereditarianism, he's arguing against what he calls a "strong IQ hypothesis". And for those complaining about his focus on low Irish IQ and eugenics as a response, he's writing about Richard Lynn and how he got started on the subject. The "presumably" bit indicates Lynn didn't say that explicitly, we'd have to ask him if he merely wanted a "positive eugenics" program such as was advocated without much success by the original eugenicists.

Anonymous said...

Unz writes- let us restrict our initial examination to the 60-odd IQ datapoints Lynn and Vanhanen obtained from European countries and their overseas offshoots over the last half-century. Obviously, some of these countries have at times been far poorer than others, but almost none have suffered the extreme poverty found in much of the Third World.


What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by Lynn and Vanhanen and perhaps also quietly held by many others.



Unz is supposedly very intelligent, but he frequently comes across as either stupid or dishonest in his writings.

The obvious explanation to the "enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples" is that the data is of poor quality. Anybody who has worked with data in a professional capacity knows that data comes in a wide variety of grades, from gold to dross. Unz makes the rookie mistake of assuming that all data is good data.

If you throw away a handful of statistical outliers then the "enormous variations" disappear, and so does the "severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ".

But for the theory which Unz seeks to advance the statistical outliers are the most valuable data points, so he can't get rid of them. He is making the mistake of picking his data to suit his prefered theory.

Silver said...

He uses that one study to argue that there exists a "Super Flynn Effect" which converts poor and low IQ people (Hispanics) into people with an IQ of 100.

Okay, if you want to interpret his behavior narrowly, yes I guess that's what he's doing. But he's also making the larger point that Lynn was quite ready to attribute the lagging Irish economy to the substandard genetic qualities of the people, as reflected by that study on Irish school children. Whether that study was accurate or not, Unz points out that it would have been a grave error of judgment to conclude that the Irish are screwed because their IQs are too low (because look at how the Irish economy performed in subsequent decades). Unz is writing for The American Conservative, not The Journal of Intelligence.

TGGP,

I will point out that Unz isn't completely throwing out hereditarianism, he's arguing against what he calls a "strong IQ hypothesis".

Yes, this is important. Again, Unz is writing in his capacity as a journalist/editorialist, not as a scientist. He knows very well that the "strong IQ hypothesis" turns the public massively off IQ altogether, so he sneaks in herediatarianism by attacking it. Masterstroke, if you ask me.

The "presumably" bit indicates Lynn didn't say that explicitly, we'd have to ask him if he merely wanted a "positive eugenics" program such as was advocated without much success by the original eugenicists.

This seems part of the same gambit, but I think it's excessive and even counter-productive -- as if people require yet more reminders of the "horrors" of eugenics and its association with IQ.

As for not mentioning blacks, well, sometimes if something goes without saying it's best to let it do so.

Anonymous said...

Unz is writing for The American Conservative, not The Journal of Intelligence.


Unz is not a conservative.


he's also making the larger point that Lynn was quite ready to attribute the lagging Irish economy to the substandard genetic qualities of the people, as reflected by that study on Irish school children.


Unz agrees with Lynn on that point.

You fail to grasp the argument which Unz is making, which is that IQ is very fluid and malleable. His "Exhibit A" for that argument is the clam that the Irish used to be rather low IQ, and are now at IQ 100. So, his argument goes, the same will happen with "Hispanics"!

His argument is a farce for several reasons, one of which is that the whole thing hinges on the validity of the clam that the Irish used to have an IQ of 87. This is almost certainly false.

Anonymous said...

He knows very well that the "strong IQ hypothesis" turns the public massively off IQ altogether, so he sneaks in herediatarianism by attacking it. Masterstroke, if you ask me.



Why do so many people persist in the belief that Unz is something other than what he appears to be - a liberal? "He sneaks in herediatarianism by attacking it"! Good grief, do you hear yourself?

Anonymous said...

As for not mentioning blacks, well, sometimes if something goes without saying it's best to let it do so.


Unz does not mention blacks because they undermine his Big Idea - the extreme malleability of IQ scores. Have you even read his essay?

irishman said...

I'm sorry but this notion of a hard and fast link between IQ and economic performance is way overstated. There's more to it than that.

One of the reasons Ireland prospered was that we are a relatively docile and honest society with a good deal of trust compared to say russia which has a higher IQ. This may or may not be innate but I would suggest that social functionality is more important than intelligence. We Irish as a mass I would guess are significantly below the white average for intelligence but I'm pretty sure our talented tenth could hold their own globally. This combination of order, honesty and enough smart people in the right places is what I would attribute our prosperity to.

P.S. I love this "living in the countryside makes you thick" shtick from Unz. The reason the Irish were so rural was during Penal times(late 18th century) we were deliberately de urbanised. Hooray! I knew there had to be some-way to blame what's not between our ears on the Poms.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but this notion of a hard and fast link between IQ and economic performance is way overstated. There's more to it than that.


Who is claiming that this "hard and fast link" exists? That's a strawman.


One of the reasons Ireland prospered was that we are a relatively docile and honest society with a good deal of trust compared to say russia which has a higher IQ.


Russia has an identical IQ to Ireland - the standard European 100.


We Irish as a mass I would guess are significantly below the white average for intelligence


You guess significanly wrong.

McGillicuddy said...

"I don't see any evidence to support that claim. The median household income of Irish-Americans, whose lower-class members supposedly love calling themselves Irish-American, is $58,634.

"The median household income of English-Americans, whose lower-class elements supposedly describe themselves as just "American", is $59,141, an insignificant difference from that of the Irish.”

"The median household income of Greek-Americans is $64,227.”

I just went back and looked at ‘English,’ ‘Germans,’ ‘Greeks,’ ‘Irish,’ and ‘Italians’ in New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and Greek average income appears to be a function of geography. In New York and Chicago, the Greek incomes were substantially lower than the other four, while in the other metro areas, the Greek population is too small to allow the census to make any estimates.

Outside of Atlanta, the Irish actually do hold-up pretty well against the rest, in New York and Chicago they’re even a close second to the English—who have the highest education levels and incomes in all of those cities except Atlanta.

Still, nationwide Irish income is lower than all major white ethnic groups (Unz claimed the opposite), and while Poles and especially Italians are more urban than them, the English and Germans are definitely more rural.

Oh, and it’s very clear based on their locations, that people who select the ‘American’ ethnicity are predominantly of English and Scottish ancestry.

Silver said...

Unz does not mention blacks because they undermine his Big Idea - the extreme malleability of IQ scores. Have you even read his essay?

Do you honestly believe that Ron Unz considers IQ "extremely malleable"? Seriously?

Why do so many people persist in the belief that Unz is something other than what he appears to be - a liberal? "He sneaks in herediatarianism by attacking it"! Good grief, do you hear yourself?

Unlike you, Ron Unz understands something about the art of influence. It's all well and good to style yourself a teller of forbidden truth, but if you want to change minds you've got to make some allowances for what people do believe and for what people want to believe.

Travel back in time to before you were a hereditarian. Did you clasp The Bell Curve with two hands and announce to the heavens that this is precisely what you were longing to hear? Or did it take you some time for the facts of hbd reality to sink in? Even if you were one of the exceptions, imagine the process others went through. Few liberals intelligent enough to grasp Bell Curve arguments believe they are refuting them with the nonsense they scribble in response. But the implications so rattle them they feel they are doing God's work by denying IQ.

In the long run, what's more important, getting the precise little details of heredity and race correct, or gaining public acceptance of the line of inquiry and social policy based on it?

Average Joe said...

A fact that Unz seems to be ignoring is that IQ is a combination of genes and upbringing. The IQ differences that we see between the Irish and other Europeans may be mostly due to upbringing. For example, the Irish children may have seen education as "acting Protestant" or "acting British" but over time the Irish lost their hostility towards education which is why they have improved over the last few decades. Blacks, on the other hand, continue to show a hostility towards education because their IQ differences are primarily genetic and therefore aren't going to disappear over time like those of the Irish.

Luke Lea said...

Unz doesn't just write for The American Conservative, last I heard he owns it. As for his own IQ, some years ago he let it be known he scored 190! He's so smart, and such a contrarian, that I suspect he thinks he can prove just about to anybody -- or at least pull the wool over their eyes and make them turn around in circles until they are dizzy. This is just my hunch.

Nanonymous said...

Luke Lea:
Personally I couldn't get to the end of it.

Yeah... Me too. Got really bored somewhere in the middle. Funny how Ron is so much more interesting in blog comments than in his big time policy articles. I think he just needs to start blogging. Which he won't do because he cherished that contrarian badge of his.

Luke Lea said...

Correction. Unz did not claim an IQ of 190. He claimed 214:

http://tinyurl.com/76vrk8u


For background, here is an interesting profile:

http://www.onenation.org/0111/111201.htm

Anonymous said...

Irishman:
"One of the reasons Ireland prospered was that we are a relatively docile and honest society with a good deal of trust compared to say russia which has a higher IQ."

Funny. I was just talking to a friend of mine who's work requires world travel, the subject of the good irish folk came up, and I asked him his assessment of them, since he worked around a relatively large sampling them for a time.

He said they tend to not think very far beyond what's in front of them, and have tempers that can go from zero to sixty in a nanosecond. Funny thing was he said after they raised the roof, they would act later as if it was all good and nothing crazy happened. They're generally stupid, and create their own problems. I said, "you mean like Sean Young!" He said, "Exactly. Sean Young is a poster girl for the Irish. If you 'get' Sean Young, you understand the Irish mind."

In any case, I had to concur. All my dealings with 1st or 2nd generation Irish is their impetuousness, their lack of ability to control their temper, either indulging in it explicity, or passive-aggressivey, and too often, they lack humility for their lack of intelligence.

I have met Irish folk who are pretty bright. Once. But I've never met one who wasn't some brand of wacky.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw in to give you an idea of how you're often perceived by white people who aren't Irish.

PS Also, couldn't the "super flynn effect" of the irish be because of cross-breeding from better stock. The Irish seem loathe to let go of their heritage. But if you're an Irish/German hybrid, couldn't that have a consistent positive effect on their IQ?

Anonymous said...

Silver:

"In the long run, what's more important, getting the precise little details of heredity and race correct, or gaining public acceptance of the line of inquiry and social policy based on it?"

Exactly. When I read the essay, it seemed like a "bridge argument," rather than strictly scientific. Too bad that approach has to be considered necessary, though it is understandable.

unix said...

"PS Also, couldn't the "super flynn effect" of the irish be because of cross-breeding from better stock. The Irish seem loathe to let go of their heritage. But if you're an Irish/German hybrid, couldn't that have a consistent positive effect on their IQ?"

Somebody here said that talking about the Irish brings some odd things out of the woodwork...If all else fails, bring out a "travel" consultant friend who's seen it all and provides authority for you.
Your doubtless sage "travel" consultant, notwithstanding. One more time: the Irish IQ is no different from that of other white Europeans, and their scholastic achievement is no different in the U.S. End of [that] story. The Irish national personality is another story. I've gone to school and work with countless Irish, and their achievement records are not remarkably lower or higher than any other white ethnic European. Actually, what ever happened to all those Polish jokes? Interchangable with Irish jokes where you come from? That said, I did know an irishman whose IQ tested 160 in the military, extremely handsome, black hair, blue eyes, toothy grin, charming, etc., but a drunk who died in a charity hospital.
Are you British? Did the IRA blow something up you liked? Personally, I have been impressed by Irish verbal skills and humour, and by some of the most beautiful music ever created.

beowulf said...

You beat me to the punch, I was going to ask if the IRA blew up his dog.

Silver said...

Funny how Ron is so much more interesting in blog comments than in his big time policy articles. I think he just needs to start blogging. Which he won't do because he cherished that contrarian badge of his.

Re that "contrarian badge," I think alt right really suffers from this bunker mentality . It's a kind of "only we know the truth and dare speak it in this fallen world" mindset. While that sentiment is understandable, it seems to set in and become a permanent filter through which to interpret events, which over times causes much despondency, because the feeling becomes, it's hopeless, none will listen, we're doomed etc.

As a way to snap out of this self-defeating mood, imagine a world in which our truths were considered commonplace and unremarkable. In this world people making eugenic decisions would excite no more interest or agitation than a woman having an abortion excites today among liberals. Yeah, she got pregnant, decided she didn't want, and got the abortion. Totally ho-hum. In the putative 'eugenic world' of the future the mere fact that race and class disparities exist would bother no one, nor would they be used as an excuse to disparage, hate or harm anyone (as classic WN has had the deplorable tendency to insist is a necessary consequence of the facts of reality). A lack of intelligence would be treated neither as a personal failing nor as a cause for pity; it would just "be." A person or couple of low IQ deciding to take advantage government incentives (financial or otherwise) to make a 'eugenic decision' would be considered good sense, but not necessarily a cause for celebration, nor would it excite (excessive) envy among friends, family or associates.

Sailer has at times suggested learning something from latin america (what?!) regarding race relations there, and that's good advice. The lessons learned can be applied to 'eugenic relations' too. Latin americans are keenly race conscious, but they understand that whatever their feelings about racial others, they're stuck with each other, so there's no point going overboard with racial disparagement, nor is there any point going overboard with racial sensitivity. I've read some revealing comments from non-black latinos dealing with black latinos in the US and contrasting those experiences with their dealings with african americans. As one put it, the black latino is someone you can have a normal conversation with; the african american will mention 'racism' six times every sentence. Eugenic relations can be similar. We can all come to accept that smarter people can get many things done much better and some things only they can do at all, and it's a good thing for a society to have such people in it; but that it's not a mark of shame not be such a person, and that pursuing one's goals and achieving them can be more or less equally rewarding no matter what anyone's IQ. We can accept all this and just get on with our lives.

If one begins views things through this perspective (as opposed to the bunker perspective) then there really is cause for optimism and we can put forward our views calmly, confidently and cheerfully, the venom that leftists spit at us running off us like water off a duck's back. We can begin to treat leftists like spoiled children who need to get over their tantrum at having their TV time cut short and do the chores mommy and daddy have assigned for them. We will turn the tables on them and have them trying to impress and curry favor with us, rather us them (a la Bill Buckley).

So smile, it ain't over by a long shot.

Anonymous said...

The IQ differences that we see between the Irish and other Europeans may be mostly due to upbringing.


We do not see any IQ differences between the Irish and other Europeans. No such difference exists.

The inability of commenters here to comprehend the most simple fact does not spak well for HBD.

Anonymous said...

I have met Irish folk who are pretty bright. Once. But I've never met one who wasn't some brand of wacky.


Quit insulting Ronald Reagan and Edmund Burke!

Anonymous said...

Somebody here said that talking about the Irish brings some odd things out of the woodwork.


Some odd people, at any rate.

The upside of the HBD blogs is that they allow discussion of things which are prohibited elsewhere.

The downside of the HBD blogs is that some of the things which end up being said on them are are the sort of factually false,ignorant and malicious bigotry which gives the whole project a black eye. "The Irish have a lower IQ then other whites" is just one such example.

Some of the bizarre opinions espoused by Whiskey and others with respect to blacks is equally nutty and contra-factual.

The hallmark of the bigot is that he cannot be reasoned out of his cherished beliefs. So no matter how many times it is pointed out that studies show that the Irish - in Ireland and in America - are equal in intellectual ability to other whites, it will never penetrate the bigots minds.

Severn said...

"The median household income of Greek-Americans is $64,227.”


I just went back and looked at ‘English,’ ‘Germans,’ ‘Greeks,’ ‘Irish,’ and ‘Italians’ in New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and Greek average income appears to be a function of geography. In New York and Chicago, the Greek incomes were substantially lower than the other four, while in the other metro areas, the Greek population is too small to allow the census to make any estimates.



Then you seem to be having some difficulty in examining the ACS data. The median Greek household income in the US is $64,227. If you like, I can explain to you the precise steps to take to examine the data for different ethnic groups.


Outside of Atlanta, the Irish actually do hold-up pretty well against the rest, in New York and Chicago they’re even a close second to the English—who have the highest education levels and incomes in all of those cities except Atlanta.


What is your hangup on "cities"? If you want to examine the English, Irish, Germans etc in America, then examine the English, Irish, Germans etc in America.

The English do not have "the highest education levels and incomes in all of those cities except Atlanta".

What is noticeable in looking at the ethnic data is that it is the small groups who do well. The big groups - English, German, Irish - are outperformed by the smaller groups - Greeks, Swedes, etc.

Here are the educational levels attained by different groups of self-described Americans. The first number is the percentage who graduate high-school, the second is the percentage with at least a four year college degree.

All whites 87.3% 29.3%

German 92.9% 32.7%

English 92.9% 37.1%

Irish 91.9% 32.2%

Italian 91.7% 33.6%

Scotch-Irish 94.5% 39.7%

Greek 89.9% 39.4%



And here are the annual household income data for different groups.

All Whites - $55,000
Irish - $58,634
English - $59,141
German - $59,383
Norwegian - $60,935
Swedish - $61,549
Greek - $64,227
Italian - $64,301


What I notice there is that the big groups - and the Germans, Irish, and English are the three largest groups in the US - are closer to the white mean than are the smaller groups.

Looking at this, you could come to the conclusion that the Southern Europeans are the smartest Europeans. I think that a more reasonable explanation is that there is an economic advantage to be gained from being a small and concentrated ethnic group in America. The Jews are the most notable example of this, but the ACS data indicates that the same advantage exists for all small and tightly knit ethnic minorities.

Severn said...

I left out the median household income of the the Scotch-Irish. It is $56,658, the lowest of all the white groups examined.

Anonymous said...

When I read the essay, it seemed like a "bridge argument," rather than strictly scientific. Too bad that approach has to be considered necessary, though it is understandable.

It didn't strike me that way at all. After an intro obviously designed to pull in HBD types, the article became simply another version of "don't worry about The Bell Curve; minorities just need more time to catch up to whites."

- A Solid Citizen

Anonymous said...

Here is the earliest version of the article on Wikipedia about Ron Unz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Unz&oldid=258628459

Anonymous said...

The Irish have long been brilliant poets and seem to be gifted at languages. The study of classical philology (one of the classic 5 high-IQ majors) has had many towering figures from Ireland.

Severn said...

Outside of Atlanta, the Irish actually do hold-up pretty well against the rest, in New York and Chicago they’re even a close second to the English



I looked at median household income in different states for English-Americans and Irish-Americans.

New York: Irish, $69,705. English, $$60,861.

Alabama: Irish, $47,059. English, $53,518.

Massachusetts: Irish, $76,230. English, $70,513.

I think this supports my theory that high ethnic concentration is a precondition for economic success.

Last, I looked at the income of English and Irish within the city of Chicago. You claimed that the Irish were "a close second" to the English. In fact the English are a close second to the Irish - $74,643 to the Irish $74,767. I'd call that one a tie myself.

Anonymous said...

[UNZ is] also making the larger point that Lynn was quite ready to attribute the lagging Irish economy to the substandard genetic qualities of the people, as reflected by that study on Irish school children.

I have not read every word which Lynn has ever written, but I doubt that it was ever his intention to "attribute the lagging Irish economy to the substandard genetic qualities of the people", and you cite nothing to back up that claim. For one thing, "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" was published in 2002, at which point Ireland had had the best economy in Europe for the previous dozen years.

Steve Sailer said...

It's difficult to adjust incomes for cost of living, which vary greatly by degree of urbanization.

I went to Catholic school K-12 in nice fairly nice neighborhoods, and the lace curtain Irish I went to school with tended to be the children of lawyers, corporate managers, real estate developers and the like. Among Irish families I went to school with, a member of one family won a Cy Young Award, an older brother in another family is one of the most famous TV actors of all time, I see another old friend as a sportscaster on a network station in LA, and other families make the local business news a lot for their various projects.

On the other hand, as Baby Boomers, these were huge families so the kids didn't have a lot of money individually even though their dads did well.

That's L.A., however, where there are no downscale Irish neighborhoods. (Poor white people move out to the desert or out of state.) On visits to Boston, in contrast, I've been fascinated to see urban neighborhoods full of ne'er-do-well white people who look like they wouldn't mind getting into a fight with anybody who looks at them funny. They are all either Irish or aspire to seem Irish.

Severn said...

It's difficult to adjust incomes for cost of living, which vary greatly by degree of urbanization.


You could use that principle to argue that Jews are not really a high-income group. After all, they tend to live in the most expensive places in the country ...

Cost of living varies dramatically even within urban areas of similar population density. We can look at Irish and English and Italians in New York City or Chicago or LA, but we can't drill down to the block level to conclude that "Group X has a higher cost of living than Group Y".



On visits to Boston, in contrast, I've been fascinated to see urban neighborhoods full of ne'er-do-well white people who look like they wouldn't mind getting into a fight with anybody who looks at them funny. They are all either Irish or aspire to seem Irish.


ACS data indicates that the Irish in Boston have a median annual household income of $69,591, compared to $70,732 for the English. I suspect that the ne'er-do-well white people in question are more likely to be Eastern Europeans. Median income for Croatians in Boston is $54,800.

irishman said...

Thank you for the defence of my people unix however I think some of it is a little unwarranted.

I personally only have a deep experience of Irish people and English people and I have to say that English people are smarter. They just are. I don't think Irish people are stupid or that English people are much smarter but it is noticeable in general terms.

I just don't believe these IQ tests and I don't believe in the Flynn effect. It just smells to high heaven. It seems to contradict all observable reality and history. I have no evidence for this but I just don't believe it.

When it comes to PISA tests and so forth I wonder what effect demographic change has had on the numbers for Britain and France for example. I wonder if you compared the results of ethnic english to other groups what would you find.

" Average Joe said...
A fact that Unz seems to be ignoring is that IQ is a combination of genes and upbringing. The IQ differences that we see between the Irish and other Europeans may be mostly due to upbringing. For example, the Irish children may have seen education as "acting Protestant" or "acting British" but over time the Irish lost their hostility towards education which is why they have improved over the last few decades. Blacks, on the other hand, continue to show a hostility towards education because their IQ differences are primarily genetic and therefore aren't going to disappear over time like those of the Irish.

7/19/12 7:21 PM"

Never a factor in Ireland. We always had separate schools and mass education started in Ireland around 1830, before the rest of the UK.

P.S. On Richard Lynn. This guy is an Briton from Ulster. He sounds like a conservative white from Mississippi trying to compliment black people. His thoughts on the Irish just reek of an opinion looking for a justification. The sour-faces do this a lot.


P.P.S.
Steve and his neighbourhoods. Americans don't appreciate how English America is. I suspect the reason for Irish dysfunction in the East coast cities like Boston is a recalcitrant reaction to this. Where America is less English like California we seem to have turned out like boring white people.

Recalcitrance is a powerful force. I suspect if America were not so darned Christian, American Jews would not be so bloody left wing and instead be more like the UK's and France's.

Anonymous said...

an older brother in another family is one of the most famous TV actors of all time

Shatner is Irish? Who knew?

- A Solid Citizen

Steve Sailer said...

"Recalcitrance"

I think that is a tendency not to be underrated. Ireland's economic progress over the last generation (granted, it was exaggerated pre-2008 by a big bubble), had a lot to do with finally getting a payoff from all the self-defeating stuff of the Eamon de Valera era intended to squeeze out the English, to have such a backward, rural society that the Protestants would leave. Once the Protestant % dropped low enough that they weren't a constant affront to Catholic pride, the Catholics could stop fearing so much to be seen Acting Protestant and get down to having a modern economy (by, shhhh, Acting Protestant and doing things like not dropping out of school.)

Steve Sailer said...

The center on the Notre Dame HS basketball team when I was a freshman was a handsome 6'7" Irish kid whose well-to-do parents had moved out from Detroit. His name was Dan Selleck.

His older brother Tom is still headlining a TV show.

Anonymous said...

the self-defeating stuff of the Eamon de Valera

Ireland's Pol Pot?

Severn said...

Once the Protestant % dropped low enough that they weren't a constant affront to Catholic pride, the Catholics could stop fearing so much to be seen Acting Protestant and get down to having a modern economy (by, shhhh, Acting Protestant and doing things like not dropping out of school


That would be a workable theory - if you actually have any evidence that the Irish were unusually prone to dropping out of school, and that they did so because they had some hang-up about (shhh) "Acting Protestant". But you don't, do you?


Eamon de Valera era intended to squeeze out the English, to have such a backward, rural society that the Protestants would leave.


That's historical revisionism. Ireland was poor, rural, and backward on the day of its independence. de Valera did not have to take any steps to make it that way. The 20's and 30's, a time of global depression, were not conducive to an economic miracle. The socialist policies of the Irish government (very similar to those of the British and American goverments at the time) did not help matters.

Severn said...

Thank you for the defence of my people unix however I think some of it is a little unwarranted


The first rule of the internet is that people's self-described biographies can never be trusted. All that counts is the quality of your facts and arguments. And yours leave a geat deal to be desired.


I personally only have a deep experience of Irish people and English people and I have to say that English people are smarter. They just are.

Your emotions say one thing. Empirical evidence says something else. Let's compromise and say that you, assuming you are in fact a genuine Irishman, are a bit lacking in the smarts department.



I just don't believe these IQ tests ..


Now, now. I just said I'm willing to pretend that you're an Irishman. Work with me here, Mick. Saying "I just don't believe these IQ tests if they don't tell me what I want to hear" makes you seem rather .. unintelligent.



On Richard Lynn. This guy is an Briton from Ulster. He sounds like a conservative white from Mississippi trying to compliment black people.


You've never read Lynn, so how do you know what he "sounds like"?

That aside, your view on "conservative whites from Mississippi" and what you imagine their thoughts on black people to be are equally misplaced. I've read a good deal of Lynn and he does not come across as a racist bigot. Except perhaps to a leftist.

Severn said...

Americans don't appreciate how English America is. I suspect the reason for Irish dysfunction in the East coast cities like Boston is a recalcitrant reaction to this.


So the Irish in Boston and New York, two traditionally Irish cities, are "recalcitrant" in reaction to "how English America is"?

Can you quantify this alleged "recalcitrance" in some way? The income and educational data from Boston and New York show no sign of it.

Of course, you don't believe in any data which does not fit your prejudices. See my comment at 7/20/12 7:17 AM. All you're doing here is emoting. Go watch "Gangs Of New York" again and leave the thinking to those better equipped for it.

Severn said...

Recalcitrance is a powerful force. I suspect if America were not so darned Christian, American Jews would not be so bloody left wing and instead be more like the UK's and France's


Jews in Britain and France (and in Ireland, not that you'd know anything about it) are every bit as left-wing as those in America.

Come clean here - you're actually "Scotch-Irish", right? The peculiar claim that Christians are perscuting Jews in America, thereby prompting their "recalcitrance", sounds like something a member of the Tribe would believe.

Recalcitrance means "resisting authority or control ; not obedient or compliant". Last I checked Jews in America were the ones in authority or control, not the much maligned Christianists.

englishman said...

Speaking as an Englishman - and you know I'm an Englishman because my screen handle says "englishman" - I have to say that the Irish are the finest people I've ever met and their intelligence is second to none.

So there!

Isn't "argument by screen name" great?

Anonymous said...

"Personally, I have been impressed by Irish verbal skills and humor"

Indeed. As evidence of the contemporary genius of the Irish mind, find below the works of master thespian and poet, Sean Young, reading from her own works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnh3CmYUPCc&list=UUBiJayT8_Urea-33QFSRt8A&index=1&feature=plcp

Average Joe said...

Another factor we have to take into account is alcohol consumption. If Irish women were more likely than British women to drink alcohol during pregnancy then this may have adversely affected fetal brain development making the Irish offspring less intelligent than their British cousins.

Average Joe said...

Also, couldn't the "super flynn effect" of the irish be because of cross-breeding from better stock. The Irish seem loathe to let go of their heritage. But if you're an Irish/German hybrid, couldn't that have a consistent positive effect on their IQ?

If the Irish are inferior to the Germans then why would the Germans mate with them? The fact that the Germans were willing to mate with the Irish must mean that they saw the Irish as their equals.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Selleck. Black Irish. He wasn't even on my radar, but he is bankable. Can't argue with you there.

- A Solid Citizen

Anonymous said...

As evidence of the contemporary genius of the Irish mind, find below the works of master thespian and poet, Sean Young, reading from her own works:


I hate to burst your bubble, but Sean Yong as not Irish. "Young' is not an Irish surname. It's actually northern English. Her mothers name is Lee Guthrie, which is also not Irish. I have no idea where you got the notion that Young is Irish.

Not that mere facts carry any weight with people around here ...

Anonymous said...

If Irish women were more likely than British women to drink alcohol during pregnancy then this may have adversely affected fetal brain development making the Irish offspring less intelligent than their British cousins.


That's two assumptions - that Irish women were more likely to drink alcohol during pregnancy than British women (are you even aware of how much British women drank two hundred years ago?) and that the Irish children were less intelligent than their British cousins.

Can I trouble you to proffer even a tiny sliver of evidence in support of either one of those suggestions?

irishman said...

" Steve Sailer said...
"Recalcitrance"

I think that is a tendency not to be underrated. Ireland's economic progress over the last generation (granted, it was exaggerated pre-2008 by a big bubble), had a lot to do with finally getting a payoff from all the self-defeating stuff of the Eamon de Valera era intended to squeeze out the English, to have such a backward, rural society that the Protestants would leave. Once the Protestant % dropped low enough that they weren't a constant affront to Catholic pride, the Catholics could stop fearing so much to be seen Acting Protestant and get down to having a modern economy (by, shhhh, Acting Protestant and doing things like not dropping out of school.)"

A horse-shit Steve, horse-shit.

First of all, Eamon De Valera's economic policies were not a failure. They were a big success. Almost all of Ireland's industry was lost because of partition. The remaining 26 counties were poor and saddled with more debt incurred to buy land from the British gentry than Germany had in war reparations. The slums in what few cities we had were worse than anywhere outside the soviet union. The state he inherited in 1932 was completely dependent and bonded to Britain. He ended the debt payments(land annuities) and introduced protectionism to build industry and fought an economic war with Britain which to everyone's surprise we basically won. They were forced out of their military bases in the 26 counties and did not oppose the establishment of Eire in 1937. The consequence of all of this was that we had a much better depression than most countries and were able to stay out of world war 2. The reason Ireland was poor could be summed up as being caused by right wing economics in the 20s, protectionism in the period 1945-60 and retaining the link with sterling until 1981, Of all those policies only protectionism could be blamed on De Valera. John Maynard Keynes proclaimed De Valera's policies and example to be followed when he visited in 1933(I think, might have been later).

The idea that De Valera was some sort of Falangist Catholic is nonsense. De Valera was tolerant of non Catholics. He allowed Anglos to retain their separate schools set up the senate to ensure their representation and made no attempt to Hibernicise them. He never scap-goated the Anglo Irish. Not once. Far from being a flunky of the church he was about the only politician from that era to successfully stand up to them. He refused to make Catholicism the official religion of the state. He selected the Anglo Irish Douglas Hyde to be the first president and collaborated with the British during the war. The protestant population shrivelled due to low birth rates and inter marriage. Of all the national minorities in Europe none were richer than the Anglo-Irish. And none were better treated by the host population and none showed little gratitude for their privilage. De Valera was the best thing that ever happened to Ireland.



Severn. When I wrote about the recalcitrance of the Irish in America I was talking about the era steve was talking about and the century before hand the beginning of which was a time of high crime among irish people. Given how mixed things are in the US these days I would wonder if statistics about white ethnics is worth much at all.

As for the Jews. Jews in Ireland largely integrated. Their is little alienation. The most prominent among them is currently a conservative justice minister. Among their number in the past have included a nationalist mayor of Cork and several nationalist and conservative politicians. I honestly can't think of an unhinged jewish leftist in Ireland.

As for France and the UK. Could you imagine a jewish American version of Nigel Lawson, Disraeli, Malcolm Rifkind or Michael Howard. I think not. A similar figure Copé is running to lead to UMP in France. I seem to recall figures from the French election recently which gave Sarkozy the majority of Jewish votes.

irishman said...

"Average Joe said...
Another factor we have to take into account is alcohol consumption. If Irish women were more likely than British women to drink alcohol during pregnancy then this may have adversely affected fetal brain development making the Irish offspring less intelligent than their British cousins."

Until a few decades ago the only place you would see a woman in a pub would be behind the bar. The strongest thing an Irish farmer's wife would drink would be communion wine and tea.

Marlo said...

severn wrote:

"Saying "I just don't believe these IQ tests if they don't tell me what I want to hear" makes you seem rather .. unintelligent."

Most HBDers do the same in regards to IQ gains for black ethnic groups. Does that mean that most commenters here seem rather...unintelligent to you?

Difference Maker said:

"It's quite obviously not. Inequality is unavoidable. One can see variation in siblings of the same family."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

"They are low IQ populations of course, being very different from east asians and native british. How do you explain it?"

It's a fact that Native Americans are genetically indistinguishable from Asians. And Gypsies, while clearly different from native British, are nonetheless caucasian. Therefore, they should have higher IQs than blacks, by the laws of HBD.

"No one has time for your shrill masturbatory claims. Control yourself please"

What you meant to say is that no one has evidence to support a genetic basis for IQ differences between races (rather than individuals, such as siblings).

"Of course. Mmhmm, I see. So neat and tidy. What a wonderful fantasy"

A "fantasy" backed by data and historical observation.

Georgia Resident said:

"I foresee mass slaughters coupled with bromides about how Europeans have an "obligation" to let in refugees from these countries."

What you foresee is of no interest. Economic growth--in particular, the shift from agriculture to industry--is always coupled with increases in intelligence. Historical fact.

"It's ironic that you castigate Stevosphere commenters for not backing up claims with sources, after making these two incredible claims with no sources to back either up."

I don't castigate anyone. I point out the problem of excessively making assertions and predictions about race and IQ, absent credible (peer-reviewed) sources. My claim about Native American IQ is based on a statement by Gottfredson, herself a proponent of HBD. My Gypsy claim is based on my own statistical analysis, which uses as a premise the fact that Gypsies are the most impoverished and uneducated group in Britain.

Admittedly, this doesn't constitute evidence. However, I don't excessively make claims about relationships between race, iq, behavior, wealth etc.

"The figures I know of typically have American Indian IQ somewhere between white and black IQ, despite American Indian tribals living in worse poverty and having a greater tendency to alcoholism than blacks. It should be noted that between American Indian tribes in the US, there is significant genetic variation, with each tribe typically having different amounts of European and African admixture."

Regardless, you failed to address the studies from Israel. Why do these studies show a group of Ethiopian immigrants--after being trained in cognitive skills important to westerners--scoring the same on IQ tests as the general population? Please read the study if you decide to comment, lest you make assumptions about the researchers, the types of tests that were given etc.

A final comment is in order. Your claim of having a high IQ is irrelevant(although it wasn't directed towards me). Numerous posters, the majority perhaps,claim to have an IQ of at least 120. Everybody can't have a high IQ, so some folks are lying. Not saying you're a liar, but we have no way of verifying it.

Average Joe said...

Can I trouble you to proffer even a tiny sliver of evidence in support of either one of those suggestions?

I am just putting this out there as a possible explanation for the common belief that the Irish were traditionally less intelligent than the British. This is all just speculation on my part.

Silver said...

It didn't strike me that way at all. After an intro obviously designed to pull in HBD types, the article became simply another version of "don't worry about The Bell Curve; minorities just need more time to catch up to whites."

Unz also totally failed to "name the Jew" too. He's just not on board.

I have not read every word which Lynn has ever written, but I doubt that it was ever his intention to "attribute the lagging Irish economy to the substandard genetic qualities of the people", and you cite nothing to back up that claim. For one thing, "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" was published in 2002, at which point Ireland had had the best economy in Europe for the previous dozen years.

The lagging Irish economy of the 70s. Unz mentions Lynn's thoughts on it in the article, so you'll have to ask him to back it up.

The downside of the HBD blogs is that some of the things which end up being said on them are are the sort of factually false,ignorant and malicious bigotry which gives the whole project a black eye.

Some people use it as a weapon or see it as their big chance to attack their enemies, that's true.

Silver said...

Numerous posters, the majority perhaps,claim to have an IQ of at least 120. Everybody can't have a high IQ, so some folks are lying.

Sure they can, on this blog.

Vermicious Knid said...

After the ludicrously dishonest statistical flimflam in his article "The Myth of Hispanic Crime" I'm not inclined to trust anything Unz says. I could wade through and check everything for accuracy but I have better things to do with my time.

Severn said...

Most HBDers do the same in regards to IQ gains for black ethnic groups. Does that mean that most commenters here seem rather...unintelligent to you?


I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. Are you claiming that IQ tests show that blacks are intelligent, but that HBDers deny that blacks are intelligent?

The claims was made that the Irish are a low-IQ group. I pointed out that all the information we have available indicates that the Irish are a perfectly average sub-group of whites, comparable in most respects to Germans and English.

If you want to clam that blacks match whites in IQ, educational accomplishment, and income, than I encourage you to present your data for inspection.

Severn said...

Silver said...

Unz also totally failed to "name the Jew" too. He's just not on board


I'm still waiting for you to explain why you believe that Unz is some stealth HBDer who is brilliantly tricking people into accepting HBD. That's a rather startling claim for you to make, considering Unz's unambiguous attack on HBD, or the "strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ" as he calls it.

Severn said...

Numerous posters, the majority perhaps,claim to have an IQ of at least 120. Everybody can't have a high IQ, so some folks are lying.


Obviously it is perfectly possible for every poster to have a IQ of 120 or more. In fact I'd be surprised if the average IQ on this blog were not something like 120.

In the full universe of humanity it's not possible for all of them to be above average. But it's perfectly possible for a small subset of people to have IQ's much higher (or much lower) than the overall average.

Of course, it's still possible that some people are lying.

Severn said...

It's a fact that Native Americans are genetically indistinguishable from Asians. And Gypsies, while clearly different from native British, are nonetheless caucasian. Therefore, they should have higher IQs than blacks, by the laws of HBD



It is not a "fact" that Native Americans are genetically indistinguishable from Asians, and repeating this claim does not make it so.

The "laws of HBD" nowhere state that all Caucasians must possess the same IQ.

It is not the case that "blacks" have a higher IQ than Gypsies. The average worldwide black IQ is about 70.

It is not the case that Gypsies are Caucasian. They are a South Asian group, genetically speaking. Per Wikipedia - "Linguistic and genetic evidence indicates the Romanies originated from the Indian subcontinent, emigrating from India towards the northwest no earlier than the 11th century. The Romani are generally believed to have originated in central India, possibly in the modern Indian state of Rajasthan".

Severn said...

As for the Jews. Jews in Ireland largely integrated. Their is little alienation. The most prominent among them is currently a conservative justice minister.


Just as I suspected. If you think that Alan Shatter is conservative, you must be waaaay out there on the left. I supposed you think that Michael Bloomberg is conservative as well. Shatters goal is to populate Ireland wth non-Irish people.

Anonymous said...

"I hate to burst your bubble, but Sean Yong as not Irish. "Young' is not an Irish surname. It's actually northern English. Her mothers name is Lee Guthrie, which is also not Irish. I have no idea where you got the notion that Young is Irish.

Not that mere facts carry any weight with people around here ..."

I hate to undermine your false sense of security, but Young is most common in Ireland, Scotland, and Northern England. Guthrie is more common in Scotland. I don't think a little Scottish shot into the gene pool is going to help Ms. Young much. In spite of that, she certainly looks classic Irish to me, as well as her drinking to excess, and acting crazy with not a care in the world credentials.

Severn said...

As for France and the UK. Could you imagine a jewish American version of Nigel Lawson, Disraeli, Malcolm Rifkind or Michael Howard. I think not. A similar figure Copé is running to lead to UMP in France. I seem to recall figures from the French election recently which gave Sarkozy the majority of Jewish votes.


You think Sarkozy is conservative? Or are you saying that Jews in France voted for Sarkozy because he is half Jew himself?

I can't imagine a modern British version of Disraeli, let along an American one. You do know he died in the 19th century, right?

There's no shortage of Jews in the Republican Party in the US. They're called "neo-cons", a term which means that they're not conservative.

Severn said...

Severn. When I wrote about the recalcitrance of the Irish in America I was talking about the era steve was talking about


Steve was not talking about some long-distant "era". He was talking about today.

And so were you. Here you say - " I suspect the reason for Irish dysfunction in the East coast cities like Boston is a recalcitrant reaction to this".

Not "was", but "is". Present tense.

ben tillman said...

The downside of the HBD blogs is that some of the things which end up being said on them are are the sort of factually false,ignorant and malicious bigotry which gives the whole project a black eye.

No, smart people don't impute the actions of stupid or malignant people to smart and benevolent people in the same field. The only thing that can give "the project" a black eye is the apparatus of public opinion formation, which does so by making such illogical and malevolent imputations. The purpose of the black eye, of course, is to provide a basis for the apparatus's ad projectem arguments: "The project does bad things; therefore everything it says is false."

Since the product of the black eye is a logical fallacy, the black eye is irrelevant to truth-seekers who don't fall for illogic.

Moreover, the actions of the apparatus of public opinion formation are something over which we have no control, and we cannot worry about false imputations of the actions of some to others. To do so is to yield to their power, to play by their rules.

unix said...

" irishman said...
Thank you for the defence of my people unix however I think some of it is a little unwarranted.

I personally only have a deep experience of Irish people and English people and I have to say that English people are smarter. They just are. I don't think Irish people are stupid or that English people are much smarter but it is noticeable in general terms."

Well you personally don't write to bright a read, that's for sure. As I said, there's a difference between intellect and personality, though each trait influence the other.

I'm not defending "your people" "irishman" (yeah, right, sure you are.) I'm telling the facts. You must be one of those "bigots" who don't want to bothered with the facts as your mind is made up.
So grovel away "irishman."
For some people, everyday on this blog is halloween where they can be anybody they want.



"

unix said...

Anonymous said...
"Personally, I have been impressed by Irish verbal skills and humor"

Indeed. As evidence of the contemporary genius of the Irish mind, find below the works of master thespian and poet, Sean Young, reading from her own works:"

Directing me to ... Sean Young? How weird. I don't actually know who Sean Young is, and someone has said that s/he is not Irish anyway.
Why not U2, Elvis Costello, Bill Whelan, Van Morrison, Enya? Lorena McKennitt? Paul McCartney (entirely Irish in inheritance.) At least I've heard of them.

Even an English lady of my acquaintance admitted the Irish tended to be funny. Humour does not translate well, but British & Irish understand each other on this point. Like I said, discussion of Ireland brings out the weird, and they persist. I was actually thinking of the various writers and poets encountered during university studies, and just in general culture. James Joyce springs to mind, that giant of 20th literature; Sean O'Casey; Brendan Behan; Oscar Wilde; Carolan the composer of almost mythic status.Just weird. btw, I am French, English, Welsh, Spanish and Irish, not to mention Creole. They would never tell me what was in the last ingredient.

actually I'm beginning to wonder if this anti-hibernian bigot is not pulling our collective leg. He's starting to sound pretty funny.

Anonymous said...

Unz is of course right to some degree. Social environment is important in one's mental development.
And it's not just about better schooling and nutrition but mental stimulation. I think farm boys who grew up hopping over dung are gonna be less mentally stimulated than city boys who are surrounded by so much stimulation all around.

So, the change in IQ numbers in poorer European nations could reflect changes due to the rise of urbanization. As more farm folks moved to the city, the kids not only got better education but lived in a social order that was more stimulating in so many myriad ways.
Thinking is not just about what you know but how you 'move and groove' through one's life. So, even a non-academic person is likely to be mentally slicker and more greased in a city setting than in a rural setting. Even a city Negro who done poorly in school is gonna be livelier in his thinking style than some rural Negro who done pick cotton all his life.

Anyway, Unz had demonstrated that social factors can raise IQ about 10 pts. But we knew that all along. So, people with an IQ of 80 can have an IQ of 90 under better conditions. And people with an IQ of 90 can have an IQ of 100 under better education and more stimulating environment. But there's a limit to how much social factors can raise IQ. A person with IQ of 80 may go up to 90, but he isn't likely to go up to 100, let alone 110 or 120.
So, even if people in poorer nations might do better in richer nations, they're not gonna be equal to everyone. It's like Asians and Mexicans can train hard and become better athletes but they're still not gonna be as good as well-trained black athletes.

As for Mexicans, I worry less about their IQ than the sheer size of their demographics, and how that demographics can be used by Democrats to increase statism and the welfare state. There is also the cultural factor of too many Mexican-Americans choosing to see themselves primarily as Mexicans than as good ole Americans.

Anonymous said...

"Numerous posters, the majority perhaps,claim to have an IQ of at least 120. Everybody can't have a high IQ, so some folks are lying."


120 isn't high. It's probably the average IQ of people who tend to be smarter but aren't really smart-smart.

My IQ ranges from 80 to 115. 80 from a 7th grade test given in school and 115 from some online test that came with 20 questions.

Anonymous said...

My claim about Native American IQ is based on a statement by Gottfredson


"A statement by Gottfredson" which you don't quote or even link to (whoever Gottfredson is) does not constitute a cite or data. It's an unsourced allegation.

My Gypsy claim is based on my own statistical analysis, which uses as a premise the fact that Gypsies are the most impoverished and uneducated group in Britain.


Why don't you factor into your "statistical analysis" the fact that gypsies are not Caucasians?

If you have ever done any "statistical analysis" then it was not on this site. Care to link to where you did do it?

Luke Lea said...

"I think farm boys who grew up hopping over dung are gonna be less mentally stimulated than city boys who are surrounded by so much stimulation all around."

Didn't some farm boys from the Mid-West pioneer the computer revolution?

Anonymous said...

I think farm boys who grew up hopping over dung are gonna be less mentally stimulated than city boys who are surrounded by so much stimulation all around.




They may well be more "mentally stimulated", but there's no evidence to suggest that mental stimulation leads to a high IQ. In fact the evidence suggests the opposite.

Anonymous said...

So, the change in IQ numbers in poorer European nations could reflect changes due to the rise of urbanization.


Una has not demonstrated any such changes. In fact he specifically denies that any such changes took place in poorer Asian nations due to the rise of urbanization.


As for Mexicans, I worry less about their IQ than the sheer size of their demographics, and how that demographics can be used by Democrats to increase statism and the welfare state.

Good for you, you city slicker. Have you noticed that Unz is a long time proponent of increased Mexican immigration, or is your mind too over-loaded with exciting city stuff to process that?

Anonymous said...

smart people don't impute the actions of stupid or malignant people to smart and benevolent people in the same field. The only thing that can give "the project" a black eye is the apparatus of public opinion formation, which does so by making such illogical and malevolent imputations


That's perfectly irrational. You might as well say that Stormfornt is a perfectly respectable site - sure, there are cranks and loon and bigots there, but they don't invalidate the opinions of the more thoughtful people.

But they do.

I'm not saying that this site has reached that level, but the way to prevent it from reaching that level is to call out the nuts and irrational haters when they surface.

You don't deny the existence of a bad element here, but you don't want to do anything about it either.


Moreover, the actions of the apparatus of public opinion formation are something over which we have no control


We have control over whether or not we allow patent falsehoods to go unchallenged. If we police our own ranks then you will have less to fear from that "apparatus of public opinion formation".

Anonymous said...

Regardless, you failed to address the studies from Israel. Why do these studies show a group of Ethiopian immigrants--after being trained in cognitive skills important to westerners--scoring the same on IQ tests as the general population? Please read the study if you decide to comment, lest you make assumptions about the researchers, the types of tests that were given etc.


Why don't you link to this study if you want us to read and comment on it?

Anonymous said...

U hate to undermine your false sense of security, but Young is most common in Ireland, Scotland, and Northern England


You're a moron. "Young" is an uncommon name in Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_%28surname%29

"Young is a surname originating in England and Scotland . Derived from the Old English word geong, meaning "young," the Young surname was used as a descriptive name to distinguish father from son or to the younger of two relatives."


In spite of that, she certainly looks classic Irish to me, as well as her drinking to excess, and acting crazy with not a care in the world credentials.


Speaking of ignorant bigots ...

Other than your dislike for the woman, do you have any evidence at all that she is in any way Irish?

You who I can't stand? Ben Stiller. It would never occur to me to make up some story about how he's black though.

Anonymous said...

smart people don't impute the actions of stupid or malignant people to smart and benevolent people in the same field


Smart people don't turn a blind eye to the actions of stupid or malignant people.

There's a stupid and malignant person right here claiming - with zero evidence - that Sean Young is Irish. Your refusal to even notice this males it appear as if you are a stupid and malignant person yourself.

All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. If you're a good man, it's past time you did something.

Anonymous said...

Most people, black or white, liberal or conservative, don't believe that blacks, on average, are as intelligent as whites or asians. Some people espouse the idea that this is because of genetics, while others attribute it to environment. The latter position is more evident. For example the study by Tzuriel & Kaufman shows a group of Ethiopian immigrants to Israel closing the IQ gap with the country at large.Kozulin showed the same result.


That study did not involve any change to the "environment".

>"after a short, but intensive teaching process, the Ethiopian group narrowed the gaps with the Israeli born group, and performed at about the same level on post-teaching and transfer tasks."

Fifty years of experience in America says that no "short, but intensive teaching process" exists which can raise the educational level of blacks to that of whites.

Anonymous said...

"Una has not demonstrated any such changes. In fact he specifically denies that any such changes took place in poorer Asian nations due to the rise of urbanization."

There is urbanization and there is urbanization. In some countries, urbanization amounts to a lot of rural poor folks living in shanty huts. That sort of thing isn't gonna help anyone.

Anonymous said...

"Good for you, you city slicker. Have you noticed that Unz is a long time proponent of increased Mexican immigration, or is your mind too over-loaded with exciting city stuff to process that?"

I don't like it but as long as white folks aren't having kids, I'd rather have Mexers than Negroes.

in the name of the paddy said...

In spite of that, she certainly looks classic Irish to me, as well as her drinking to excess, and acting crazy with not a care in the world credentials.


Speaking of ignorant bigots ...

Other than your dislike for the woman, do you have any evidence at all that she is in any way Irish?"

He thinks she looks "classic irish to me." If this troll gets any lamer they'll have to put 'im down.
So he doesn't know, he just thinks she does? "Irishman" sounds like a classic troll to me.
He's probably either a "liberal" trying to sound like their idea of a dumb Irishman who thinks the English are smarter (well, the English have accomplished more compared with the Irish but they've also accomplished more compared with almost any other single nationality, though I realize that's a controversial claim.)
Or "irishman" might be black.

Anyway, he's a poor, if blatant, liar, cackling away thinking he struck a big victory for the anti-HBD crowd by getting whites to argue over various European ethnics, using the same arguments that get used arguing over race differences. I'm sure "irishman" thinks he's clever.
No irishman would cite Sean Young (whoever that is) as an indicator of Irish [lack of] achievement in the lit/poetry category when any person with any cultural literacy at all knows that Ireland has provided a few towering giants in the fields of literature and playwriting.

So irishman is not only not irish. Irishman has got no culture and does a poor imitation of sounding like an average paddy-in-the-street.
.

Anonymous said...

Steve -- Has anyone drawn your attention to IQ Testing 101, by Alan S. Kaufman? I'm almost done reading it, and it's awesome. Kaufman worked with David Wechsler (of WAIS fame) before striking out on his own and developing the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, among other tests. The book seems to be a text aimed at upper-level undergrad psych majors. He discusses the history of IQ testing, how IQ tests have reflected different theories of intelligence, what IQ tests measure, how reliable they are, and a series of "hot topics" including the Flynn Effect and the heritability and malleability of IQ. He doesn't touch on race and IQ, and he takes a middle-of-the-road position on heritability (genes are responsible for 50% of IQ variation) and malleability (he's optimistic). Regardless, the book is great because of the number of studies he summarizes, and his apparent willingness to show all sides.

- A Solid Citizen

dixon said...

120 isn't high. It's probably the average IQ of people who tend to be smarter but aren't really smart-smart."

120 IQ is officially very high, statistically. It is in the upper 10% of the white population. So it is "high."
People who discuss IQ a lot, tend themselves to be "high" and tend to overestimate the number of people with such intelligence. It's scary, I know, but there are just as many white people with IQs under 100, as over.

dixon said...

Fifty years of experience in America says that no "short, but intensive teaching process" exists which can raise the educational level of blacks to that of whites."

Neither does a long, intensive process, like the St. Louis, MO, "experiment" that poured millions upon millions into a most black public school body, with virtually nothing to show for it 20 yrs later. Same in D.C. More resources spent on the average (black) d.c. pupil than anywhere else, and still they do poorly. Nothing works.

ben tillman said...

Smart people don't turn a blind eye to the actions of stupid or malignant people.

Yeah, and.......?

There's a stupid and malignant person right here claiming - with zero evidence - that Sean Young is Irish. Your refusal to even notice this males it appear as if you are a stupid and malignant person yourself.

My refusal to notice? You're confused. This phenomenon you mention cannot be noticed by someone without specialized knowledge. I have never heard of Sean Young.

ben tillman said...

That's perfectly irrational. You might as well say that Stormfornt is a perfectly respectable site - sure, there are cranks and loon and bigots there, but they don't invalidate the opinions of the more thoughtful people.

But they do.


Are you really contending that argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy?

Or did you just fail to write what you mean? Did you mean "discredit" instead of "invalidate"? Probably, but even that doesn't work.

RKU said...

Ben Tillman: No, smart people don't impute the actions of stupid or malignant people to smart and benevolent people in the same field.

Yes, exactly.

After all, when you're mining for something valuable---say gold---it's perfectly acceptable if most of your ore isn't gold, even 99% or so. People who restrict their activity to ore which is at least 50% pure gold don't find a lot of mines to work.

When exploring controversial topics inadequately covered by the mainstream media, the Internet constitutes a useful resource, even if most of the commentary is rather stupid or ignorant, just so long as you occasionally find a comment suggesting an important idea or fact you otherwise might never have considered. All it really takes is some solid effort at efficient filtration and analysis, and some patience in removing all the gravel, quartz, and fools' gold. On the plus side, lots of the stupid and ignorant commentary can sometimes be quite amusing, or even provide useful insights into various forms of mental illness.

Obviously, the central issue is the quality of the ore. Perhaps filtering ore which is 99% junk is acceptable, but 99.9% may just become a cost-ineffective waste of time.

Frankly, this particular thread seems to consist of rather low-grade ore...

Seattle said...

"Steve Sailer said...
"Recalcitrance"

I think that is a tendency not to be underrated. Ireland's economic progress over the last generation (granted, it was exaggerated pre-2008 by a big bubble), had a lot to do with finally getting a payoff from all the self-defeating stuff of the Eamon de Valera era intended to squeeze out the English, to have such a backward, rural society that the Protestants would leave. Once the Protestant % dropped low enough that they weren't a constant affront to Catholic pride, the Catholics could stop fearing so much to be seen Acting Protestant and get down to having a modern economy (by, shhhh, Acting Protestant and doing things like not dropping out of school.)"

This is far and away the dumbest thing you have ever written.

Silver said...

There is urbanization and there is urbanization. In some countries, urbanization amounts to a lot of rural poor folks living in shanty huts. That sort of thing isn't gonna help anyone.

This has been described "urbanization without development." It's not to be taken literally, of course, but it does help to draw a distinction.

Vermicious Knid said...

"You're a moron. "Young" is an uncommon name in Ireland."

It may be of English origin, but many Irish Catholics have English ancestors. The early medieval English settlers in Ireland, the "Old English", remained Catholic and kind of "went native" eventually and merged with the rest of the Irish population after the 1600s.

Difference Maker said...

Marlo said...

"Saying "I just don't believe these IQ tests if they don't tell me what I want to hear" makes you seem rather .. unintelligent."

Most HBDers do the same in regards to IQ gains for black ethnic groups. Does that mean that most commenters here seem rather...unintelligent to you?


How fortunate that we have your holy words to refer to! Of course, in matters of the Right Things to Say & Believe, prudence will dictate that we not repeat falsehoods, and so we must examine these studies to ensure they are not fabricated, as has often been the case in the past.


"It's quite obviously not. Inequality is unavoidable. One can see variation in siblings of the same family."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html


You mean your premise has been entirely defeated by such a simple example. You're welcome.

"They are low IQ populations of course, being very different from east asians and native british. How do you explain it?"

It's a fact that Native Americans are genetically indistinguishable from Asians.


It is a fact they are not

And Gypsies, while clearly different from native British, are nonetheless caucasian.

As well as being incredibly different from native British. As you say, a Chinese and a Mexican are both Mongoloid. Does that make them capable of the same things? Why is one Britisher a Prime Minister, and the other a janitor? Indeed, China was an empire, and you would be hard pressed to find uniformity even within its borders..

Therefore, they should have higher IQs than blacks, by the laws of HBD.

What a silly and imaginary logic puzzle. There are no "laws of HBD", and if there were they would certainly not be so simple. What a laughable idea.

EDIT: You must have been thinking of the fundamental constant of sociology. You forget that it describes what is observed, not explains what must be. And you even got the groups being described wrong.


"No one has time for your shrill masturbatory claims. Control yourself please"

What you meant to say is that no one has evidence to support a genetic basis for IQ differences between races (rather than individuals, such as siblings).


Exact genes or combinations of genes may not have been identified, but that is for smarter people than yourself to elucidate. Don't be so ungrateful

"Of course. Mmhmm, I see. So neat and tidy. What a wonderful fantasy"

A "fantasy" backed by data and historical observation.


"Historical observation" hardly suggests the likelihood of the described African haven, indeed the exact opposite is suggested to a reasonable man. Are you telling a joke?


Regardless, you failed to address the studies from Israel. Why do these studies show a group of Ethiopian immigrants--after being trained in cognitive skills important to westerners--scoring the same on IQ tests as the general population? Please read the study if you decide to comment, lest you make assumptions about the researchers, the types of tests that were given etc.

Israel's general population IQ is only 94, so they're still dumb.

A final comment is in order. Your claim of having a high IQ is irrelevant(although it wasn't directed towards me). Numerous posters, the majority perhaps,claim to have an IQ of at least 120. Everybody can't have a high IQ, so some folks are lying. Not saying you're a liar, but we have no way of verifying it.

Who is claiming what? In fact, I claim to have an IQ near 150, lol! More regurgitating of arguments your betters have made in past conversations, I see. 120 would be a rather low average. You've forgotten that the commenters on this site are not a representative sample of the general population, or of the people you hang with. Surely you have noticed that

Anonymous said...

It may be of English origin, but many Irish Catholics have English ancestors. The early medieval English settlers in Ireland, the "Old English", remained Catholic and kind of "went native" eventually and merged with the rest of the Irish population after the 1600s.



The "early medieval English settlers in Ireland" were Norman, not English. They stuck with Catholicism when England broke with Rome and they did merge with the rest of the Irish population. None of them had names like "Young" though. Their names were/are Norman in origin - Fitzgerald for instance.

People here cannot simultaneously claim that people with northern-English names (like Yong and Jackson and Smith) were/are English when it suits them, and also they they were/are not English when it suits them. Sean Young is exactly as Irish as Andrew Jackson.

I don't care what standard you chose to use, as long as you stick with it consistently.

Anonymous said...

Are you really contending that argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy?



You are the one defending argumentum ad hominem, not me. You are the one defending people who say things like "I don't care what the IQ tests say". Do not attempt to pretend that you are occupying the high ground of logic and reason.


I have never heard of Sean Young.


Evasion. You are perfectly aware that "Young" is not an Irish surname. If somebody named "Young" made a great scientific breakthrough you'd have no problem in identifying that person as non-Irish.

But set aside "Young". There are plenty of other malicious falsehoods propagated in HBD-land. Just about everything Whiskey has to say about blacks, for example. Or the claims on this page that the Irish are stupid.

HBD is supposed to be, in the words of The Inductivist, "Driven by data, not doctrine". People who take the opposite position - and there are a lot of them here - need to be culled from the herd.

Anonymous said...

when you're mining for something valuable---say gold---it's perfectly acceptable if most of your ore isn't gold, even 99% or so. People who restrict their activity to ore which is at least 50% pure gold don't find a lot of mines to work


So you would cheerfully visit a website where 99% of what was said was either willfully or ignorantly incorrect, as long as one percent was true?

You're lying to me. You should spend your days at Democratic Underground if your really feel that way.





I've never found your comments to be amusing, or to provide useful insights into mental illness.

On the plus side, you do not propagate falsehoods on a regular basis. Your bizarre fixation on that one IQ test in Ireland is an anomaly in your case, not the rule.

I suppose you provide a useful service in giving us an insight into the mind of an intelligent liberal.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, this particular thread seems to consist of rather low-grade ore


Still waiting for you to offer an opinion on what Unz wrote. (Nudge nudge, wink wink)

pat said...

I wasn't a "development expert" or "development economist" by any means but I was an economics major as a college junior when I took a class in development at San Francisco State in the sixties.

Development of the third world was considerd an Interdisciplinary Social Science subject then not just a subject of economics. No matter how wide the academic perspective was race was never mentioned. But there was not much discussion of colonialism or any kind of Marxist analysis either. I don't remember anyone ever mentioning energy or even technology in general.

As I remember one critical factor was considered to be self investment. It was said that there was an investment "take off point". As soon as any society invested - I think it was ten percent - they would suddenly be on the path to wealth. It was not considered a policy choice. It was something that just happened automatically. The rich nations were thought to be those that had just randomly gotten to this take off point earlier than others.

There was another theory extant that I can't really do justice to because I never quite understood it. Somehow development was seen as a crystal, or a process of crystalization. Again various elements lined up and developmet took off. Every explanation in that class seemed to be a heuristic. Theories were suggestive and picturesque.

It was suggested that Africa and South America would soon arrive at the "take off". I don't remember anyone saying much about Asia. Certainly the "Asian Tigers" or even the "Celtic Tiger" were not foreseen.

I haven't kept up with develoment theories. I got out of Interdisciplinary Social Science soon after that. It was as close to sociology as I ever cared to be. Half a century ago it was obvious that development theories were rot.

I'm not surprised if delevelopment experts have been tempted by HBD ideas. Lynn and Van Hannen have at least a simple straight forward set of ideas. Their ideas also lead to testable hypotheses.

I drive a Japanese car. There were those in my development class who would have predicted that by now I might be driving a car built in Swaziland.

Albertosaurus

Steve Sailer said...

Is this Sean Young person male or female?

Anonymous said...

"Directing me to ... Sean Young? How weird. I don't actually know who Sean Young is, and someone has said that s/he is not Irish anyway.
Why not U2, Elvis Costello, Bill Whelan, Van Morrison, Enya? Lorena McKennitt? Paul McCartney (entirely Irish in inheritance.) At least I've heard of them."

Two words: The Kennedys.

Our first "white trash with money" family in the White House, they were instrumental in the deaths of millions overseas, and the unchecked immigration that gives us the undocumented underclass we enjoy today.

There. I just zeroed out your accounts. Who are you going to toss up next? Sinead O'Conner?

Anonymous said...

Albertosaurus: "No matter how wide the academic perspective was race was never mentioned."

I wonder how long it will be before development experts acknowledge the role played by a country's human raw material?

- A Solid Citizen

unix said...

"Our first "white trash with money" family in the White House, they were instrumental in the deaths of millions overseas, and the unchecked immigration that gives us the undocumented underclass we enjoy today."

Was it really our "first?" You're grasp of the facts does not inspire confidence in this discussion.
But Anonymous (or "irishman") by george, you've got as much gall as you've got ignorance.

JFK responsible for millions dying? Only in your dreams. His ambassador to Vietnam has more to answer for, but that's too complex a subject to bother you with, as you seem as deranged as you are untruthful.
JFK tried to stop the war, and we know where that led. The many of years of Johnson, Nixon, and the subsequent POTUSES, bear far more responsibility for millions dying. About the Immigration Bill of 1965, I don't believe Sen. Ted knew where that would lead but he was pretty much a captive animal of the left by then. He had to tow their line.
Couldn't stand Ted myself.
But I'm not sure why you think this one, rather unique family, proves your point in any way. They were/are as atypical financially as culturally. More than one observer who knew Joe Sr. personally, called them some of the least Irish Irish they'd ever encountered.

innocent bystander said...

"I have never heard of Sean Young.


Evasion. You are perfectly aware that "Young" is not an Irish surname. If somebody named "Young" made a great scientific breakthrough you'd have no problem in identifying that person as non-Irish."

"Evading" you? No, they're saying they don't give a shit about some pop figure you've dredged up, who has not credibility in the realm of cultural literacy. And "Young" could be any nationality where English is spoken.
One thing: you've got a right to your opinions, but why are you trying to get people to think you're Irish yourself? Nobody believes you.

Meng Hu said...

Here's another bogus attempt to discredit IQ and the Wealth of Nations. (see also my comments in the comment section)

Anonymous said...

Unz mentions how Greeks have low IQs in Greece, but above average IQs in America...

Indians are supposedly dolts, yet even peasant Indians and their descendants do well in the United States as small business owners...

levantine Arabs are supposedly as dumb or dumber than Mexicans and South Americans, yet are a dominant merchant caste and high achievers all across latin America...

Actually, what ever happened to all those Polish jokes? Interchangable with Irish jokes where you come from?


And, i think Kerryman jokes in Ireland itself.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/cousin-marriage-can-reduce-i-q-a-lot/

Inbreeding depression. If you have two more or less identical populations where one inbreeds and one doesn't then the inbred one will have lower average IQ.

If you took a bunch of people of the same nationality but from lots of separate inbred rural villages and dumped them in particular districts of New York or Boston or Chicago where they inter-married then the inbreeding depression would lift and the average IQ would rise to the average for their latitude band (or whatever it is that delineates the base IQ).

#

Una has not demonstrated any such changes. In fact he specifically denies that any such changes took place in poorer Asian nations due to the rise of urbanization.

The inbreeding depression won't lift if the people who move from their villages to the towns settle in the same streets and continue to only marry people from their own villages whether locally or from back home - which is what happens with a lot of South Asians in the UK for example who arrange marriages to cousins in their home village.

Urbanization plus arranged marriages is no different to rural plus arranged marriages - even across continents.

#

Why do Italians do best relative to other area whites in places where there aren't a lot of Italians? Why are New England Germans so rich?

Minorities stick together more.

This effect is greatly magnified if a more clannish minority is living among a more individualist majority e.g. Greeks among Anglos.

The clannish benefit disappears if a clannish group are a minority among an equally clannish population e.g. Greeks in Greece.

The minority benefit would disappear in an environment where everyone is a minority.

#

Do you honestly believe that Ron Unz considers IQ "extremely malleable"? Seriously?

Not in the slightest, so his continued adherence to unlimited mass immigration means his motivations are?

Silver said...

Minorities stick together more.

This effect is greatly magnified if a more clannish minority is living among a more individualist majority e.g. Greeks among Anglos.


This is true, but the effect isn't hugely significant. Clannishness isn't some royal road to riches. The economic performance of these groups could even inferior to that of Anglos while still allowing that they have outperformed strictly IQ-based predictions.

Not in the slightest, so his continued adherence to unlimited mass immigration means his motivations are?

I don't follow everything he writes but I was under the impression he had embraced restriction. If he has not then he is certainly guilty of advocating a policy not in accord with what he knows to be true of the world. Possible motivations for this are economic self-interest, sentimental inertia and simple fear.

Anonymous said...

"This is true, but the effect isn't hugely significant."

It is *hugely* significant at each IQ plateau.

Low average IQ clannish populations will outcompete the low IQ segment of an individualist majority at the organized and semi-organized crime level.

Medium average IQ clannish populations will outcompete the medium IQ segment of an individualist majority at the shop-keeping level.

High average IQ clannish populations will outcompete the high IQ segment of an individualist majority at the banking level.

Hugely significant.

Homogenous individualist populations can create a huge surplus. They can carry a lot of of free-riders bacause they produce such a huge surplus but when the limit is reached...game over.

Silver said...

It is *hugely* significant at each IQ plateau.

The dollar figure difference in earnings isn't very significant is what I meant.

Homogenous individualist populations can create a huge surplus. They can carry a lot of of free-riders bacause they produce such a huge surplus but when the limit is reached...game over.

Wild exaggeration. First of all, I notice clannishness has somehow become "free-riding." But there's no reason this should be so. Either those clannish groups earn the income represented by the dollar figure statistic or they don't. There is no reason I can see to attribute those earnings to swindling the taxpayer and it strains credibility to claim it's all the result of ('classic') criminal activity.

Secondly, I'm not sure what is meant by "surplus." It seems to go back to this idea that Anglos are wealth-creators while every else is simply leeching. But all economies create wealth (a "surplus"); some economies just create more and others less at the same point in time. It's a monumental error to assume, however, that however much wealth is being created at the present point in time is the greatest amount of wealth ever possible. Economies grow and there is no reason to believe wealth-creation ability has been maxed out yet. Moreover, should such a point be reached that wealth-creation is maxed out, that is not in itself a "game over" scenario.

Anonymous said...

Unz on Race/IQ: Rejecting the Ostrich Response

FredR said...

You should mention that Unz's website (www.ronunz.org) now has everything he's ever written in its archives.

Anonymous said...

I notice clannishness has somehow become "free-riding." But there's no reason this should be so. Either those clannish groups earn the income represented by the dollar figure statistic or they don't


That's really missing the point. "Groups" do not earn income, individual members of those groups do. Yes, we can say that "Group X earned Y dollars last year", but nobody set out to pay Group X that money.

If clannish group X makes Y dollars per person, it does not follow that all those members earned that income.

Take blacks as a example. Via political patronage they earn a lot of money at government jobs. They get more in the form of government benefits. Would you say that this clannish group earns the income represented by the dollar figure statistic? I doubt that you would.

The same principle is at work in all clannish groups: exploit the larger population for the good of the group. Absent that principle, there's not a lot of point in being a clannish group.


all economies create wealth

Obviously false. No country would ever get poorer if this were true.

Severn said...

"This effect is greatly magnified if a more clannish minority is living among a more individualist majority e.g. Greeks among Anglos.'


This is true, but the effect isn't hugely significant


Greek Americans out-earn Anglo-Americans by about $6,000/yr. Whether this is "hugely significant" is a matter of opinion. But the evidence does indicate that all else being equal, clannish groups out-perform non-clannish groups.

Severn said...

Do you honestly believe that Ron Unz considers IQ "extremely malleable"? Seriously?


Seriously? I do believe it. The alternative would be to believe that Unz is a liar of gargantuan proportions.

The simplest explanation for a person insisting that they believe X is that they believe X.

Can you tell me why you disbelieve him?

Severn said...

Two words: The Kennedys.


Our first "white trash with money" family in the White House, they were instrumental in the deaths of millions overseas, and the unchecked immigration that gives us the undocumented underclass we enjoy today.


This guy's just a troll. We have unchecked immigration because people as varied as George Walker Bush (English-American), John McCain (Scotch-Irish), and Barack Obama (whatever the hell he is) want us to have unchecked immigration. The ghost of Ted Kennedy is not reaching out from the grave to force the American people to vote for open-borders idiots.

Silver said...

The same principle is at work in all clannish groups: exploit the larger population for the good of the group. Absent that principle, there's not a lot of point in being a clannish group.

Ah, but the same principle is not at work. Just because blacks, to a significant degree, earn the income they do because of make-work government jobs and set-asides doesn't mean all groups do. A clannish employer employing one of his own in the private market is not the same thing. The private employer and his private employee earn that income.

Obviously false. No country would ever get poorer if this were true.

You're obviously wrong. All economies create wealth, even if they're growing poorer (creating less wealth with each passing year). It may not be very much wealth. It may even be a pitiful amount of wealth. But, technically, it's wealth all the same. What you were attempting to argue, as I see it, was that some groups' wealth-creation ability is innately so limited an expansion of their numbers beyond some tipping point will cause the total amount of wealth created in rich countries to begin rapidly contracting. That may well be, but there's no evidence of it occurring yet and no reason to expect it to begin occurring any time soon.

Severn,

Greek Americans out-earn Anglo-Americans by about $6,000/yr. Whether this is "hugely significant" is a matter of opinion. But the evidence does indicate that all else being equal, clannish groups out-perform non-clannish groups.

That's all very well, but the implication that people who drone on about it want to make is that absent that clannishness these groups would earn nothing, that everything they have depends on that clannishness.

Seriously? I do believe it. The alternative would be to believe that Unz is a liar of gargantuan proportions.

The simplest explanation for a person insisting that they believe X is that they believe X.


I guess that depends on what you mean by "extremely malleable." I'd say he believes the question regarding the degree of difference between groups isn't yet settled. But I don't doubt for a second he's convinced of the general nature of intelligence distribution, its hereditarian causes and socioeconomic consequences.

Severn said...

Just because blacks, to a significant degree, earn the income they do because of make-work government jobs and set-asides doesn't mean all groups do. A clannish employer employing one of his own in the private market is not the same thing.


It's a variation on the same thing.


The private employer and his private employee earn that income.

What does "earn" mean in this context? You are basically saying that there is no such thing as crony capitalism or insider trading. This is libertarian BS - "nothing which happens in the market can be criticized".


but the implication that people who drone on about it want to make is that absent that clannishness these groups would earn nothing


Nobody is making that implication.


I don't doubt for a second he's convinced of the general nature of intelligence distribution, its hereditarian causes and socioeconomic consequences.


I asked you why you disbelieve what he keeps telling us, not to repeat your belief that he believes something other than what he is telling us. I asked you why you "don't doubt for a second" that Unz believes stuff which he has argued long and hard against. Stop telling me what you believe and start telling me why you believe it.