I’ll note that I put up one the the strongest defenses of a genetic hypothesis, period. I went beyond even academics such as Rushton and Lynn and cleverly re-analyzed decades old studies using contemporary genetic findings. See, for example, my updated versions of “Witty and Jenkins (1936)” and “Scarr et al. (1977).” Moreover, I added new data to that decades old; see for example Blacks, IQ, and Color in the NLSY97 and “It Could be Culture, part I (The NAEP Black-Mixed-White gap).” Few places on the web will you find a more extensive defense of “race”, debunking of race debunking, defense of the genetic racial hypothesis, defense of within population hereditatianism, and so on. As I spend an undue amount of time on this issue, I write the following with deep disatisfaction…
Before attempting to explain the following, consider:
(1) The correlation between GCSE and g is substantial. To quote from Deary et al. 2006:
“This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000+ English children examined the association between psychometric intelligence at age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25 academic subjects at age 16. The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman’s g from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design.” (Intelligence and educational achievement.)
Here was the 2004 relation between Cognitive ability tests and GCSE performance:
(Yes, I’m aware of the data reported by Lynn (2008). I discussed it here “The General Mental Ability (GMA) of Black British.” I most likely know more about this issue than you so don’t assume otherwise.)
(2a) African Immigrants to the UK are only so immigrant selected. Here’s a pick from “Is the brain drain good for Africa?”:
Generally, it is rather unlikely that Black African migrants represent more than the upper third of the African phenotypic g distribution (i.e., that they are more that 1.1 SD selected for g — or, to put it otherwise, that they fall, on average, above the 86th percentile.
A more reasonable scenario, to my mind, is that they represent no more than the 70th percentile of the g distribution or are no more than 0.55 SD above the phenotypic mean.
(2b) For a trait like g, with a typical narrow heritability of 0.6, children will regress 40% towards their parental population’s mean.
(2c) To put (2b) another way, parents need to be 1.7 standard deviation units selected per every 1 standard deviation units that their children are selected.
(2d) To put (2c) and (2a) in context, if we are dealing with large sample sizes, we can roughly estimate the genetic difference between European Whites and African/other Blacks as the difference between European Whites and 2nd+ generation Blacks in Europe minus 0.6 times our estimate of immigrant selectivity.
(3) The sample sizes are large. As of 2009/2010, Blacks represent 5% of the UK Age 16 school population. In comparison, Chinese, who do exceedingly well, only represent .4%. You can compare the Black sample size here (>24,000) to the summed sample size for IQ tests over a 40 year period reported by Lynn (2008) (>16,000).
(4) Academic Hereditarians agree that immigrant performance is a tests of the hereditarian hypothesis. To quote Lynn (2010):
The evolutionary theory does however predict that when different races occupy approximately similar environments, such as for instance in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, the intelligence differences will remain. This prediction has been examined in twenty three societies worldwide in Lynn (2008) and has been confirmed in every case. If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified. Those who maintain that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between the races are urged to attempt this task. (Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan)
To quote Greg Cochran (2011):
As some of you already know, Henry and I have put forth the hypothesis that the observed high intellectual achievement of Ashkenazi Jews is a result of natural selection for intelligence over the Middle Ages. We think there’s a pretty good case. One important supporting fact is that high Ashkenazi intelligence shows up everywhere they live. You see it in Russia, the US, Latin America, Israel, etc. It doesn’t spring from a single cultural milieu: you saw it in Jewish kids raised in turn-of-the-century Vienna, in Israeli kibbutzes, in Bronx tenements, and in Stalinist Russia. It’s not a consequence of Talmudic study – you see the same results in religious and irreligious people of Ashkenazi descent….
…As Neil Risch forcefully put it, in an interview with Karen Kaplan on our paper about Ashkenazi Jews, “What are their theories about those on the opposite end of the spectrum? Do they have genetic theories about why Latinos and African Americans perform worse academically?” A truly perspicacious question – to ask it is to answer it. (Risch’s Conjecture).
Now, the findings needing explanation:
This is for 16 year olds; I included gender as a reference; since no g differences in gender were found in Deary’s study, the Male-Female difference is an index of non-g influences:
For reference, here are the standardized GSCE score differences based on the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England. Under KS2 is listed the average age 14 test score gaps (year 2004); under KS4 is listed the average age 16 point score gaps (year 2006). The calculation of point scores is described here: http://www.education.gov.uk/performancetables/schools_04/sec3b.shtml Value added technical information.
The difference of interest is the age 16 Black-African White gap, which is about 0.10 SD or virtually nonexistent.
Convergent evidence supports the non-existence of a gap. See: Strand and Lindsay, 2009. Ethnic disproportionality in special education: Evidence from an English population study.
Compare with the prediction of Lynn (2008): “Mental retardation is also partly the tail end of the normal distribution of intelligence and the incidence of this would be expected to be greater among the ethnic minorities because these have lower mean IQ and hence a greater proportion at the low end of the distribution.”
It seems that, in the UK, White Liberals closed the Black-White gap:
I will shortly contact a couple of UK academics and request CAT3 scores by ethnicity on the chance that the GCSE scores might not accurately represent g scores, for the populations in question. After I have certainty on this issue, assuming agreement between the two, I will discuss and evaluate possible modified versions of race realism (e.g., non-additive genetic models such as a race realist version of the Flynn and Dickens (2001) model, models which distinguish between local and global populations, etc.).
In the mean time, I will be happy to hear HBDish explanations for the above which take into consideration points 1-4. (If you comment please specify the magnitude of the genetic Black African-White European racial gap that you think is tenable.)
(The good news is that, to the extent the g gap can be closed, the West as an economic entity will not be doomed by massive Black immigration and “integration.” The bad news is that the West as an ethnic entity now surely is. From a philosophical point of view, it appears that science in the mode of “scientific racism” can not save White people. As I discussed a while back, Western science is so interwoven with Western philosophy, that the two are virtually inseparable:
Jung’s point here is important — in the West, “the real” was largely narrowly identified in terms of the rational and objective. In general, this applied not just to Western philosophy but also to Western spirituality and theology, which was one reason why the scientific revolution and the enlightenment had such a deleterious impact on the traditional Western world-views, and why they precipitated the radicalism that they did (Nihilism, positivism, philosophical Liberalism, biological nationalism, Marxism, etc.). Given the strong association, in the West, between the rational and objective and the philosophical, spiritual, and theological, reevaluations of the former radically affected the later, in a manner not comparable to the affects that equivalent reevaluations had in other cultures, often inducing systematic re-valuations and with them pervasive dysnomia. One can compare, for example, the impact that the scientific revolution had on Christianity to the impact it had on Hinduism; the later, though equally non-empirical, was never shaken in the degree that the former was. Hindus never experienced the angst that (European) Christians did over the conflict between science and religion, since, for Hindus, religion and science largely existed in different mental spaces. I would extend Jung’s point: Western man’s great silliness was his superficiality. I tangentially discussed this here, in Why the West Discovered the Modern World; in short, as Nietzsche noted, the very thing that led to the stellar rise of the West, underlies its undoing, not unlike the ring of Niblung and the fate of Gods of Asgard.
The cultural association between science and philosophy, specifically between the objective and subjective, is why White people, as and ethnic group, can be empirically disproved out of existence, in a way that no other group can. To put it another way, the existence of White people is contingent on the existence of biological racial difference, which is why many of us have invested so much energy in trying to establish the latter and establish it by showing differences in one of the supreme Western values*. Based on my analysis above, the support for existence of White people, then, is greatly weakened.)
*I, for one, have made it clear over the past 2 years that this was part of my agenda — I am — or was — an unapologetic scientific racialist, where that means using science to establish metascientific positions, such as the psychological importance of “race.” This type of activity is what more intellectually sophisticated antiracists — who also try to use science to establish metascientific positions, just in the reverse way — mean when they speak of “scientific racism.” I post the above — about “race realism” — because I am interested advancing intellectually defensible versions of “racialism.” If “race realism,” in this or that objective sense, is untenable, then defenses must be retuned.