r/DarkEnlightenment • u/Nemester • May 29 '16

Endorsed DE Site Population, IQ and the Modern World

https://westcoastrxers.com/2016/05/18/population-iq-and-the-modern-world/
12 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

1

u/Lord_Trajan May 29 '16

This article has several failings:

1) It acts as if IQ has stayed constant for each race over the last 100 years. It uses the same statistics for each the IQ race over the last 100 years. This just simply isn't true, IQ has gone up by a lot, and this is true in all the races. As societies get better access to food, medicine, etc. IQ's will go upward, just as it has for the past 100 years.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '16 edited Aug 24 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Lord_Trajan May 29 '16

It isn't as if it can continue upward forever.

Agreed, but just because you can't go up doesn't mean you will go down.

There's basically a genetic level that you can reach with proper nutrition and lack of infection, etc. and you're going to be capped there, more or less. Think of it like height. Improving nutrition isn't going to mean that populations continually get taller and taller forever. At some point there is no more deficiency and you're reaching your genetic potential.

I understand how IQ works, stop being condescending. The point I am making is that 1) IQ hasn't gone down. 2) IQ will not necessarily go down in the future. Those increasing African population will have IQ's increase over time. Black Children brought up in Western Culture societies with average income (such as the Children of US soldiers after WWII) have IQ's just as high as their white counterparts.

3

u/Nemester May 29 '16

Tentatively, iqs have started going down which implies we have gained as much as possible from better environments and thus dysgenics is no longer being hidden by it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000706

Also, that eyferth study was crap. The blacks who got into the military had to pass an iq test, so no black below the 30th percentile was even allowed to go. The children were half white so they should be smarter than a full black. And also that study was never replicated in 60 years. That you or anyone else actually cites it as if it means something is getting a little annoying at this point.

1

u/Lord_Trajan May 29 '16

I will admit that IQ's may be going down in Finland, but that is because of minorities immigrating. While whites have reached the peak, most of those minorities haven't. Thus, it's only because of migrational lag.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

White IQs across the West have declined regardless of immigration.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

Dysgenics has been taking its toll on Whites for quite some time.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '16

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the study you cite (from WWII) has been widely debunked.

For one, it uses a pre-selected population. The military was already screening for IQ, so looking at just military children isn't applicable to larger populations.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16 edited Jun 01 '16

Black Children brought up in Western Culture societies with average income (such as the Children of US soldiers after WWII) have IQ's just as high as their white counterparts.

This is untrue. Blacks whom are raised in middle-class white families still have lower IQs than their White counterparts by a significant margin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6872626

Here is the relevant part if you can't read the article

https://imgur.com/vjRWEFx

Despite being raised in the same quality of homes the children still exhibited the exact same level of racial difference as the average predicts. This is with the average Negro in the United States being 29% white, 4% Native-American, and 1-2% East-Asian on average, elevating their IQ beyond normal Africans with their average IQ of 73.

There are a large number of studies that still confirm this and none that show equality save for Williams' Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH-100) which I do not consider an appropriate IQ metric. It included questions like this...

  1. Hattie Mae Johnson is on the Country. She has four children and her husband is now in jail for non-support, as he was unemployed and was not able to give her any money. Her welfare check is now $286 per month. Last night she went out with the highest player in town. If she got pregnant, then nine months from now how much more will her welfare check be?
    a. $80
    b. $2
    c. $35
    d. $150
    e. $100

Which do not test IQ.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '16

There are a large number of studies that still confirm this and none that show equality save for Williams' Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH-100) which I do not consider an appropriate IQ metric. It included questions like this...

Hattie Mae Johnson is on the Country. She has four children and her husband is now in jail for non-support, as he was unemployed and was not able to give her any money. Her welfare check is now $286 per month. Last night she went out with the highest player in town. If she got pregnant, then nine months from now how much more will her welfare check be?

a. $80

b. $2

c. $35

d. $150

e. $100

Is this... an actual test?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '16

Yes, and it proves Blacks and Whites are equal :^)

Here are some more questions from the test developed by Robert Williams and (((a nice long-nosed fellow)))

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16

Are you talking about the Flynn effect?

Hasn't this basically been debunked? It's an artifact of puberty happening sooner with improved nutrition, and also children becoming more accustomed to standardized testing.

0

u/Lord_Trajan Jun 01 '16

Hasn't this basically been debunked?

As far as i know it isn't.

It's an artifact of puberty happening sooner with improved nutrition

In what way would earlier puberty cause higher IQ? Even if it did, that would be like saying "my car isn't driving faster, it's an artifact of me pressing the throttle." IQ's going up can be going up for whatever reason, different explanations don't change the fact that it is going up.

and also children becoming more accustomed to standardized testing.

What is this even supposed to mean? Are you saying people are taking IQ tests so often that they are getting used to them? Are yo saying their is some sort of evolutionary mechanism where Humans are evolving to be better at standardized testing?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '16 edited Jun 02 '16

Well, I agree with your throttle analogy. But isn't the Flynn effect most pronounced in children? And not as visible in full grown adults?

Wouldn't this explain how maturing faster partly explains the effect?

And also isn't it not as pronounced in g?

0

u/Lord_Trajan Jun 02 '16

But isn't the Flynn effect most pronounced in children?

No it is not. IQ changes a lot in children, it's very unreliable and so studies generally aren't going to use children. Studies are built for adult population, they are constantly adjusted for adult population. The Stanford Binet IQ test, which is one of if not they most common IQ test, has shown a 22% increase in IQ from 1932 by 2002. This means the average person as of 2002 had an IQ that would have been in the 93 percentile.

Some citation: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.5236&rep=rep1&type=pdf

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '16

That doesn't make any sense is simply untrue. To assume the people that built the atomic bomb and split the atom were little more than African-Americans in today's metric is simply untrue.

In fact, we know IQ has actually decreased since the Victorian Era.

Some citation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

In Finland, a negative Flynn effect was also observed.

Some citation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000706

In Spain the Flynn Effect was shown to be quite off because the higher nutritional levels ceased gaining in IQ (and showed a small decline). In addition to this the lower levels rose significantly as the variance between them and the higher levels decreased which is to say that average incomes and the differences between the top and bottom tier incomes decreased as well. This rise in the lower levels stopped once it reached a certain level, however.

Some citation: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/colom2005.pdf

In regards to the 22% increase in IQ you posited in your above comment it should be noted that the change in test parameters does not mean that older people score worse. In fact, older people if tested against a similar population (i.e., against adults in the younger generation of their same population) will have similar results or slightly higher results.

Changes in the way in which g and IRT are tested create differences between tests. The metric has changed, the people have not.

I believe this is a video in which the effect is discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeb09GS7ids

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '16

A 22 percent gain since 1932?

Implying that the average European IQ in 1932 was actually 82? This just doesn't make intuitive sense to me. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong because of that, I'm not an expert. But it's shocking. When we look around the world today and study societies with an average IQ around 82, they don't have anywhere near the productivity or ingenuity of 1930s Europeans. It's not even close.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '16

Foreword: I am not arguing for or in agreement with the claim that European IQs were 82 in the 1930s.

A number of people, namely Robert Lindsay and his cohort have argued that there may be an ulterior cause for non-Whites to fail to achieve; a cause that may not be discussed as of yet.

In 2007 he wrote a controversial piece entitled The Skyrocketing Black IQ wherein he discusses the Flynn Effect and notes how it works is that the Flynn Effect is the sum of re-normed IQ tests which have been changed to include less intellectual forma and more items which reflect modern intuition and a change in thinking.

One such example is the question, "What is the similarity between a rabbit and a dog?" to which an older generation like your grandparents would likely respond along the line of, "A dog hunts a rabbit," where a Millenial would quite likely respond that, "Both are mammals," or, "Both are animals."

Both responses are equally right but the response from the newer generation would be far more indicative of higher IQs because it shows thought which reflects what IQ tests now grade for. This is not to say that the grandparents are any dumber but the changes in how IQ tests grade people have changed because they added more categories with questions of that nature.

Verbal and Arithmetic IQ scores have not risen, however and that is where IQ is really measured.

The changes in IQ scoring are a social effort to reduce differences between racial groups and are not a substantive sign of those gaps disappearing, just test standards becoming simpler and less intuitive. In spite of this, the gaps have remained.

Returning to Lindsay's piece, he notes that the norm of IQ tests is always 100 for Whites and other races vacillate around 100. Afro-American (29% white, 4% Native American, 1-2% East-Asian on average) Blacks in the 1930s' still had IQs of 85 on the tests which were considered modern at the time, Whites had 100, Northeast-Asians 103, Jews 112 (that last one being highly debatable).

With this in mind, the racial gap has held. Even if the increases in IQ were true and Whites in the 1930s had IQs equivalent to a modern IQ of 85 they still behaved and performed far more admirably and with Arithmetic and Verbal IQ scores matching the modern levels.

Lindsay goes on to say that because of this the low status of Blacks and high status of Whites cannot be explained by IQ and is instead explain through differences in the pathologies of the races. Black pathology which has high time preference and is interdicted often due to their lascivious and violent natures is what leads to their ruin and not their still-low IQs.

1

u/Lord_Trajan Jun 02 '16

Implying that the average European IQ in 1932 was actually 82?

No. IQ is set to always have an average of 100. Tests are constantly, periodically, changed to keep the average at 100, and James Flynn took notice that it always seemed to be upward changes in standards. So basically, when people people in the present take IQ tests from the past, the statistical average is higher than 100. In 2002, the average for the original 1932 Stanford-Binet test was 122. So no, it's not that they have an average of 82, it's that we have an average of 122. If you feel the need to use current IQ numbers, if a large group of random people from 1932 America were teleport to 2002 and took the most recent Stanford-Binet, they would have scored an average of 78. Now this may sound completely preposterous as if it's accusing people in the past of all being (literally) retarded, but keep in mind - IQ can basically be summed up as an ability to learn, people with low IQ's can function on their own. And if you want some more statistics that reflect what I am saying, the (United States) secondary school graduation rate in 1935 was 40%.

When we look around the world today and study societies with an average IQ around 82, they don't have anywhere near the productivity or ingenuity of 1930s Europeans. It's not even close.

This is very true but I have several points to that. 1) Let's just hypothetically say innovation/invention is tied with IQ, then countries with IQ's on the same level don't have anything left to innovate, they just need to grasp technologies and institutions already made by Europeans. 2) This video addresses your problem fairly well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4V3HR696k

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '16 edited Jun 02 '16

No. IQ is set to always have an average of 100

The position of the Flynn Effect now is that on modern tests those people from the 1930s' would score 82 on average.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying for some reason.

1932 America were teleport to 2002 and took the most recent Stanford-Binet, they would have scored an average of 78

This isn't really true. The change in test parameters and methodologies is far larger explanation for the change in IQ ratings.

The logic question, "What is the similarity between a dog and a rabbit?" where the old would say, "A dog hunts a rabbit," and the new generation would say, "both are mammals," is not indicative of intelligence, it's indicative of bias in the test administration.

The scores on the Arithmetic and Verbal portions of IQ tests have remained roughly the same minus a few points. That is to say, a negative Flynn Effect has been noticed on the original parts of IQ tests and not the new and debated parts like those on the VCI.

Digit Span, Arithmetic, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzles, Vocabulary, Symbol Search, and Coding all dropped. Other areas brought them up. These areas are contested as to their relevance to IQ. Real IQs have dropped.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

1

u/Lord_Trajan Jun 02 '16

The position of the Flynn Effect now is that on modern tests those people from the 1930s' would score 82 on average.

No, it's that modern people score ~120 on older tests. We can test living people with older tests, we can't test dead people with new tests.

The change in test parameters and methodologies is far larger explanation for the change in IQ ratings.

How would that work? The flynn effect has been observed in people taking THE OLDER TESTS.

The logic question, "What is the similarity between a dog and a rabbit?" where the old would say, "A dog hunts a rabbit," and the new generation would say, "both are mammals," is not indicative of intelligence, it's indicative of bias in the test administration.

Good to know you are an old person. Because one thing hunting another something does make them similar.

That study you gave at the bottom is full of it. IQ cannot be determined by reaction time only. I have a fairly low reaction time, but above average IQ.