Why Thomas Sowell is wrong about IQ
(www.jollyheretic.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
This video is just, well bad… considering that the majority of black orphans are genetically fucked because mom was a drug addict/ alcoholic/ etc during pregnancy them being able to achieve an average iq of 89 from an average far lower than 85 does indeed show that IQ is more environmentally malleable. The Asian IQ myth is another one that is almost entirely environmental, that’s why the Asian iq variance is hilariously dependent on what culture they come from despite having near identical dna (north versus South Korea for example). There are instances where genetics highly determine iq and there are instances where brain trauma from an injury actually spike the persons iq by 30 points.
Do you have some evidence to support this?
What average that is "far lower than 85" are you referring to?
IQ is environmentally malleable to the extant that it can be pushed to its phenotypic limit by access to more resources and education, but only to a very certain degree. Your example actually support this phenomenon, known as the "Flynn Effect."
At around 98, the North Korean IQ is very good by international standards, and is only 4 points below its much wealthier neighbor to the south, 102. This is also, not coincidentally, the same difference in average IQ of US blacks (85) to blacks raised by white parents (89).
There are not just instances, this is the general trend. Intelligence is so strongly correlated with genetics as to be highly predictable.
Race, Social Class, and IQ:
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Race-Social-Class-and-IQ-Population-differences-in-heritability-of-IQ-scores-were-found-for-racial-and-social-class-groups.pdf
Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability:
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34/htm
The new genetics of intelligence:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104
Genetic Ancestry and General Cognitive Ability in a Sample of American Youths:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354766492_Genetic_Ancestry_and_General_Cognitive_Ability_in_a_Sample_of_American_Youths
The Persistence of Cognitive Inequality:
https://humanvarieties.org/2019/12/22/the-persistence-of-cognitive-inequality-reflections-on-arthur-jensens-not-unreasonable-hypothesis-after-fifty-years/
Not familiar with this phenomenon, but rare, unpredictable freak accidents are not relevant to understanding different population groups intelligence levels. Important decisions around education, economics, government policy, etc can be based on the latter, not the former.
When the average of ALL black people is 85, the average for adopted children are lower because once again the average adopted child comes from higher risk environments than the average.
North Korea does not have an average IQ of 98, that is an estimated number not an actual accounting because much like China, NK only self reports and in most cases iq estimates are made by regions so NK is given a higher average because they are bordered by China and South Korea. The autism rates in NK compared to SK alone squash that metric as it is one that NK can’t lie about.
Variance is higher than predictability in all of these cases. The average of 5 points difference is a huge factor when looking at genetically identical twins or genetically similar siblings.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3771015/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/
Just say "the average of black people (in the US) is 85." The "average of all black people" means something quite different.
I'm asking what that number is, not relying on assumptions. You're claiming they are making big jumps in IQ merely through changes in environment. Show me what those jumps are, as we observing rather modest increases otherwise.
It is the estimate we have based on the evidence available. It's possible it is off, but that is conjecture, and the number presented is highly consistent with the Flynn effect. Not sure what you're arguing about in the rest of that paragraph so I'll skip responding to it.
The autism rates in NK compared to SK alone squash that metric as it is one that NK can’t lie about.
So you dispute IQ averages of North Korea, but readily accept the numbers associated with autism? Which I don't see the relevance of anyway.
Variance and predictability are not at all incongruous with each other. The predictability of genetics as it relates to intelligence is so strong on average that, if you had similarity consistent predictability in sports betting, you would quickly amass a fortune.
I can already see where this conversation is headed. The evidence has been presented for those looking to come to an understanding on this topic.
No the numbers are admittedly conjecture are the people that do the studies admit countries like North Korea are done by region averages because there is no data given by the NK government.
You mean there’s a difference between falsifiable data and non-falsifiable data?
As long as environmental factors are maintained, the second malnutrition hits, iqs drop dramatically like in the pubmed study I posted…