A gaping hole in the Master’s evolutionary theory

[Edit: Corrections made as needed. I guess I need to start looking into the nootropics.]

[Note: To see the evolution of my thoughts on this refer to my others posts on the UK gap: Occidentalist, 2011. The General Mental Ability (GMA) of Black British; Occidentalist, 2012. Is (global) “race realism” still tenable?; Occidentalist, 2012. Partially falsified. You will notice that I have been all over the place on this topic. The problem is that it’s difficult to get a hold of UK IQ data broken down by ethnicity and it’s even more difficult to interpret this data, given various confounding factors such as migrant status. I’ve contacted a number of psychologists working in the UK but no one seems to have — or is willing to share — information. (All of them were kind enough to reply, though.) Generally, seven points are noticeable concerning the Black-White gap: (1) Longitudinal studies show a small to nonexistent IQ gap between ages 3 and 11 (e.g., a Black-White gap ranging from 0-0.5 SD). (2) The Black-White Longitudinal IQ gap does not systematically increase with age (between 3 and 11) as it does in the US, but it either stays the same, decreases, or bounces around. (3) Longitudinal studies show a small to nonexistent achievement gap between ages 11 and 16 (e.g., A Black-White achievement test scores/GCSE point gap ranging from 0 to 0.35 SD). (4) Some cross sectional data shows a small achievement gap between ages 11 to 16. (5) Cross sectional data shows a moderate sized IQ gap by age 11 (e.g., a Black-White IQ gap of around 0.5 SD). (6) Some cross sectional shows a large adult gap, but there is little consistency across data — with points ranging from 0.3 SD to 1.7 SD — calling this data into question. (7) There has been a steep decline in the magnitude of the IQ gaps and achievement gaps over time.

My interpretation is: (1) There are, at most, small genetic differences, with respect to intelligence, between Black and White children born in the UK. I base this on the following: (a) There are currently trivial to moderate sized IQ gaps between children, ages 3-11, born in the UK as evidenced by longitudinal studies (e.g., MCS and EPPE 3-11) and as evidenced by achievement score gaps (e.g., KS2 Math and Reading test score differences). (b) The overall magnitude of the gaps are diminishing decade by decade across age cohorts, which suggests that some of the current gaps between children ages 3-11 have an environmental origin (for reference, compare the data in Lynn 2008 with Occidentalist 2012). (2) There are, at most, small genetic differences, with respect to intelligence, between Black and White adolescents and young adults born in the UK. I base this on the following: (c) The data from the mentioned longitudinal studies does not agree with the conjecture that the gaps increase with age. (d) This induction is confirmed by the finding, based on the LSYPE, that the gap in achievement scores, scores which are highly correlated with g within populations, do not increase with age. (e) Further confirmation comes from cross-sectional data, which shows trivial gaps between Blacks and Whites and yet large gaps, as expected by a genetic hypothesis, between children in line with the skill level/educational level of their parents. (3) There are, at most, small genetic differences, with respect to intelligence, between Black and White adults born, respectively, in Africa and in Europe. I base this on the following: (e) There are modest to large adult IQ gaps in the UK. Since these are not due to the low performance of Blacks born in the UK (points 1 and 2), it stands to reason that these are due to the low performance of recent African immigrants, who have low IQs due to being reared in low IQ affecting environments. This is evidence, then, that Black migrants to the UK are not super-duper genetically selected and unrepresentative, with respect to IQ, of their native populations. (f) As further evidence against super-duper selection theory, I present the result of Somalian refugees, who presumably were not very selected and who perform only 0.5 SD below Whites in measures of scholastic achievement.


As much as I disrelish the idea of Lynn et alia being wrong (about genetic racial differences), I can’t but help conclude that they mostly are (especially Nyborg with his ludicrous figures).

I sent out a number of inquiries for UK IQ data broken down by ethnicity but came up empty handed. Steve Strand, though, an accomplished educational psychologist who frequently conducts research for the Department of Education, forwarded me several of his recent papers on ethnic achievement gaps. For example, here, here, here, and here. It will be noticed that the standardized differences, presented in these papers, between ethnoracial groups (e.g., Blacks, Whites, South Asians, etc.) are small to trivial compared to the differences between classes.

When it comes to the gaps, it’s informative to look at the findings from longitudinal studies, as these are less confounded by migrant status and as these indicate how the gaps vary as a function of age. Disentangling race and migrate status is vital as what is of interest is the performance of ethnic/racial groups reared in roughly the same environment. And naturally, discerning the relation between the magnitude of the gaps and age is important given the relation between environmentality and age, within populations.

In the longitudinal studies, many of which can be analyzed online here, we see that, rather than increase with age, the gaps dissipate:

(Goodman et al., 2009. Inequalities in educational outcomes among children aged 3 to 16.)

The first two points above shows the gaps based on the Millenium cohort study, which began in 2000-2001. (Notice the dopey new face of England shown on the MCS site.) The children were tested with the British Ability Scale. Missing is the Age 7 data, which I previously linked to. It will be noticed that between ages 5 and 7 the gaps narrow, not widen. The age 11 follow up for the MCS is being conducted this year and should resolve the issue of whether the IQ gaps narrow or widen with age. The Last three points show the results from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England, which began in 2004. The cognitive measures reported are the Key Stage 2, 3 and 4 (GCSE) scores. You can see an alternative analysis of the data, broken down by test scores and point scores in tables 1 and 2 here. It should be noted that GCSE scores are derived from both achievement test data and other evaluations; this renders the relationship between population differences in GCSE and IQ scores ambiguous, even though IQ scores correlate highly with a latent GCSE factor within population. Using just the KS2 (age 11) data, which is based exclusively on math and reading test score results, the Black-White gap is a mere 0.3 SD. Other Longitudinal studies, however, such as EPPE 3-11, show, by age 11 (2008), no differences in Math and Reading ability tests. Refer to table Table A3.1: Cognitive attainments at the end of Year 5 by ethnic group, here.

Needless to say, the above is not what a moderate to strong genetic hypothesis (e.g., Lynn’s 50/50 global genetic/environmental hypothesis) would predict. In response to the above, defenders of hereditarian differences inevitably reply with the epicycle that immigrants are supper-duper selected. When I point to the performance of groups which are clearly not very selected such as Surinamese in Holland or Somalians in the UK, it’s more epicycles. It might be the case that there are some genetic differences, but based on the migrant data the magnitude of the difference between representative samples is likely small.

Generally, it’s not going to be the presence of racial differences that ushers in the twilight of the European peoples, as Lynn has argued, but the absence of them. Expect complete integration to move on pace.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to A gaping hole in the Master’s evolutionary theory

  1. Lemniscate says:

    I think you’re paying far too much attention to GCSE and sub-GCSE scores. GCSEs have been designed specifically to produce egalitarian results, especially in the New Labour years. I’d like to see the achievement gaps in A-Level (18 years of age usually) mathematics. The black guys I knew at school mainly did well at GCSE due in large part to pushy and strict parents — something British whites don’t have — then failed later on, either at A-Level or at university. Blacks are certainly not proportionally represented in Oxbridge either.

    Why no Chinese in these data?

    • Matt says:

      GCSE gaps overall seem pretty awful as a general measure of cognitive ability, despite being great for universities, because it is quite possible to take a set of GCSEs in “Art and Design”, “Performing Arts”, “Music”, “Psychology”, “Hospitality”, “Health and Tourism” and “PE”(!).

      The core GCSEs are English, Maths and Science, which we’d guess have a respectable IQ loading, but the others may be less certain. Those set of GCSEs which have the same content (mathematics and english) as the SAT are probably a good substitute for the SAT (although less than perfect, because, yes, coursework). When jobs are advertised in the UK, there is a reason why the English and Maths GCSEs are specified requirements while other GCSEs are not at all.

      There are various technical abilities, but as many or more expressive subjects and humanities and languages [learning French is not cognitively challenging but motivation and communicative], and schools generally dislike having to try and teach technical subjects, with their health and safety requirements and risks and expensive equipment. I don’t really strongly doubt enriched levels of performance by Black persons in expressive subjects, sports and very soft humanities, which are all all GCSE fodder, where they are doubtful in practical, conceptual and rational subjects.

      That’s why the maths and reading data is more interesting. I find those data quite strange though – at the very least I cannot believe Pakistanis and Bangladeshis performing worse 1 sd worse than Black Caribbean and Africans, it is a strong contradiction of the everyday experience throughout British life. And I am not impressed by their sample size.

  2. Abelard Lindsey says:

    This is good. I was hoping the HBD stuff was wrong. There are genuine differences between the races. Apparently intelligence is not one of them.

  3. Chuck says:


    I feel the same way. For a while, this hypothesis seemed so alive — and revolutionary. It perhaps could have indeed changed the zeitgeist. At least a strong version of it could have.

    To my mind, the situation, though, is worse then you think. I consider it probably that there are some genetic intelligence differences between representative samples of Africans and Europeans; they are just small (i.e., < 0.4 SD); they are small enough that they can be masked by immigrant selection. Moreover I think that it's reasonable to conclude that there are some genetic intelligence differences between European and African Americans, based on the numerous studies that I and others have reviewed. (The latter largely descend from a population of 0.5 million slaves who were not selected for intelligence; and they have been undergoing dysgenic selection at a faster rate than White Americans.) This situation is worse, because while the differences are small or isolated enough for a genetic hypothesis to be readily discredited, they still exist and, on average, will lead to outcome differences (in absence of intervention programs). These outcome differences will, of course, be interpreted as due to racism and will fuel the anti-white narrative. It's the worst of all possible worlds.

    I think you are right though that the "the more dishonest of us will rationalise or just ignore." Likely, they will point to the possibility/probability of small differences to dismiss the above evidence and then go about as if the differences could be large. For example, in reply to my post about the age 7 BAS results, Nyk argues:

    "This still doesn’t tell us anything about those children left behind in Africa, not to mention about adult IQ which is the one that really matters for a society"

    Yet as for the first point, I already explained in great detail the implications, given the limits of immigrant selection.

    Generally, I would be happy, of course, to be wrong — and I'm more than open to changing my mind — but no one is able or interested in presenting counter data.

    • Nyk says:

      I was pointing that out because it seems to me that you are too quick to generalize from statistical data without looking at alternative explanations for that data, and at how valid the data really is.

      Also, I am quite disappointed at the (statistical) state of research into race differences. There are no tested, overarching scientific theories about how race differences in IQ/equality in IQ among human populations came to be. In short, what both sides of the argument are doing here is just looking at models and statistics; I’m sorry, but this isn’t science.

      I kind of like intelligence-HBD because it can explain so much about human history: why the Jews keep winning Nobel prizes in the sciences and how wealthy certain countries are today (except Mongolia; the comparative lack of scientific breakthroughs among E.Asians can’t be explained by IQ differences alone)

      But given no race differences in IQ, I can only conclude that some other racial differences are responsible for the current state of Africa and the fact that Asian are underrepresented in Nobel Prizes and scientific breakthroughs. Of course, it could be culture alone – but somehow I find it hard to accept that culture can be created, and exist, divorced from the genetic predispositions of a certain population.

      Either way, this doesn’t hurt the anti-immigration movement one bit, since we know even less about how to change the cultural outlook of a given population than about how to increase their average IQs (through selective breeding AKA eugenics – preferably of the voluntary kind).

    • Marcus Gunn says:

      I have read your blog for several years now, and I commend you for your honesty and integrity.

      Not understanding much of the science behind HBD, I have been mostly a neutral observer of these debates, which I followed with great interest. My emotional investment to HBD was never about wanting to feel “superior” to any other race. It was a chance for white people to define ourselves. With the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity, there’s a pretty clear message that we are to be replaced because we are the ones holding everyone else back. I suppose that’s not a new sentiment in human history, it just is all the more tragic when your own people have decided you are not worth keeping around.

      • Chuck says:


        Self definition and self defense seem to be the logic behind much support for HBD, as least when it comes to IQ differences:

        In fact—this theme permeates Race—play of the gene card, far from being a gratuitous swipe at blacks, has been forced on defenders of justice by the constant diabolization of whites. It is impossible to be silent when silence amounts to an admission of guilt. Michael Levin. 1997. Why Race Matters.

        In fact, few of the arguments of the conservatives had much validity except in terms of the correct answer to the innate-equality dogma. If all races were innately equal, then of course our social organization, both nationally and on the world scene, was full of flaws. If they were not, then the whole problem changed and conservative policies took on new meaning. Thus in refusing to challenge the dogma, conservatives were fencing on a scaffold while liberals laughed as they watched the trap door open. It became quite appropriate to refer to the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the liberals’ kept opposition. Their members were condemned in advance, set up to be ridiculed and extinguished, amid the scorn and self-satisfaction of the left. Putnam, 1967. Race and Reality.

        The supremacist caricature is just that. Defense is what led me to HBD originally. Initially, I encountered so many accusations of “supremacism” that I had to repeatedly clarify this issue. I even made funky graphs to explain the reasoning. Since I’ve come to question the logic of “anti-supremacism.” I’ve come to feel that “Supremacism,” in the sense of a tacit feeling that you and yours is better, in the manner of a youthful arrogance, is a natural group feeling, when it’s not unnatural, in the sense of a needing-to-feel-better. The idea that “Supremacism,” in the former sense, is bad, is, as I now see it, a form of slave morality.

    • Chuck says:


      You can have environmentally conditioned global variance in IQ without genetically conditioned variance. The most plausible environmental theory for national IQ differences now is disease burden, which implies physiological, not cultural, differences. The major difference between the two most plausible candidates, genetic-biological or environmental-biological causation, is that with the former the offspring of migrants will continue to perform similar to the native populations. This is what we are discussing here. Not whether there are global differences in physiological intelligence. That’s granted.


    • Matt says:

      A bit late to respond to this, but note West Indians also were formed through slavery. A theory of divergence between Africans and African-Americans may be served by the idea that the process of enslavement pre-selected for low IQ, but it wouldn’t be useful for a theory of West Indian British and African-American divergence.

      That leaves dysgenics for the remainder of any genetic divergence you may find between African-Americans and British West Indians. I don’t think that is very promising ground for a large difference – this would be a selective difference on the order of what Cochran and Harpending postulate for Ashkenazi Jews, in a shorter time frame (if British West Indians do converge with White British to as close a level as you seem to find).

  4. RobertB says:

    What nonesense. Your data, you admit yourself, is non-existant. And from that you draw conclusions such as this? Africa is what it is due to the over all low IQ of its populations. Only a fool would think otherwise.

    • Chuck says:

      Refer to my comment to Nyk. There can be little doubt that “Africa is what it is due to the over all low IQ of its populations.” And there can be little doubt that there is a physiological basis to these low IQs. What is being discussed is to what extent the differences are congenital. This is why are are looking at the IQs of 2nd and 3rd generation migrant Black African populations. Were a genetic hypothesis correct, and were the migrant populations representative of the native populations with respect to IQ, then the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants should perform similar to their native populations. I’m not seeing this. I’m open to being convinced otherwise, though.

      • c3dric says:

        Just to interject, are you assuming that 3rd generation blacks and greater don’t have greater amounts of non black heritage?

      • Chuck says:


        I make no such assumption. In the data, “Blacks” are classified separately from individuals of “Mixed Heritage.” Refer to the papers cited.

  5. Kiwiguy says:

    ***then that last, rational empirical strand that could convince and transform policy is no longer in existence, and ‘we’ as a group, are simply doomed to extinction.***

    @ James,

    That empirical strand was never going to transform policy. It couldn’t justify a purely race based immigration system as groups overlap.

    The smart selection policy advocated by the likes of Jason Richwine (“Smart Solution to Diversity Dilemma”) seems a more persuasive argument (citing the Putman research on diversity & how screening for smart immigrants can ameliorate the negative impacts on social capital).

    Also, as the blogger ‘nooffensebut’ has argued, the HBD argument focussed on IQ alone is too controversial. Another significant social implication of HBD is the massive difference in crime along racial lines. Even liberal places like the UK are having to acknowledge this now, with the appalling riots they experienced in August last year (see “Race and the riots” The Economist 3 September 2011″, and earlier in the Daily Telegraph article “Violent inner-city crime, the figures, and a question of race” 26 June 2010).

    These differences are increasingly being noted in ‘bio-social criminology’ research. I’d recommend Anthony Walsh’s “Race & Crime: A bio-social analysis”, or the chapter by John Paul Wright ‘Inconvenient Truths: Science, Race & Crime’ in “Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research” by Kevin Beaver and Walsh (you can access a lot of the material on google books).

    In terms of broader HBD areas, Jonathan Haidt also noted in his edge essay on “Faster Evolution Means More Ethnic Differences” that you’ll see a lot of interesting findings on “moralized traits” over the next 5 or so years.

    I haven’t had a chance to read the links above, but would be curious to know if the GCSE’s are being taken by all students. I’ve read that increasingly the “public schools” (or in NZ we would call them private schools) have switched from the GCSE to an International GCSE which is regarded as more challenging and similar to the old O-levels. Those students tend to make up a large proportion of the intake to places like Oxford & Cambridge.

    It will also be interesting to see the MCS results that come out this year. I don’t think this issue is resolved either way.

    • Chuck says:

      “I don’t think this issue is resolved either way.”

      Agreed. It’s not resolved. To the extent that you accept my evidence, the hereditarian racial case, with respect to IQ, is just weakened somewhat.

      (I’m just beginning to build my case.)

  6. chris says:


    Robin Fox: Anthropologist

    “When I was looking at the way in which under “natural” conditions human groups split up and disperse I came up with the following “law” (in The Tribal Imagination, HUP 2011 chap. 3):

    “The probability that any human group will fragment increases in proportion to the decrease in the average coefficient of relationship among its members.

    Corollary: The groups produced by the fragmentation will have a higher average coefficient of relationship than the parent group.”

    In plainer English, the less closely over time that the members of the group become related to each other, the more likely they are to split up.

    I continued: “If the average degree of relationship falls below, say, r = .015625 (the relationship between fourth cousins) then a split is likely to occur, with more highly related people making up the smaller groups.””

    What do I mean by this quote? Even if there is negligible difference in IQ between populations, diversity, that is a decrease in genetic relatedness between individuals within society could result in its disintegration. That I think, is a very good reason to avoid/oppose it.

    This would most likely all tie back in under inclusive fitness.

    • Chuck says:


      Thanks for the link. I agree that there is more to race than IQ differences. But as many make much of these differences in our circles, I consider the claims about them to be worth scrutiny, especially, as our position is not helped by being wrong on this issue. Were error of benefit in this matter, I might not comment; but it is not.

  7. statsquatch says:

    Interesting as always Chuck, but like Nik I have a few concerns:

    1) The data in your graph is from two different studies and cohorts and is taken at different times. Are you sure this data is representative? I think the LSYPE uses the actual GCSE that the child took, obtaining them from the school. But we know that all children in England do not take the GCSE. If lower IQ kids at 5 are less likely to take the GCSE that could easily explain the closing of the gap over time.
    2) The number of blacks in England is very small and hence, even accounting for oversampling, the number in these surveys will also be small. Any significant non-response could easily throw things off. The graph came from a paper that was not peer reviewed and I could not find any discussion of non-response or the actual Ns.

    If you are right, though, you should look on the bright side. If the gap in IQ is shrinking so will the gap in fertility.

    • Chuck says:


      In my discussion, I presented 3 new pieces of evidence (Which are not fully shown in the graph): (1) Age 3, 5, and 7 IQ scores from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) — a nationally representative longitudinal study of kids born in 2000/2001. These scores are based on the British Ability Scale (which was actually designed to be un-g-loaded). PCA was used to determine the g differences. The age 7 black n was 437. You can compare the sample size, date, and representativeness to the samples that Lynn offers. (2) Age 11, 14, and 16 scores from the nationally representative Longitudinal Study of Young People in England — a nationally representative longitudinal study which started in 2004. The age 11 scores were based on Math and Reading tests (i.e., Keystone 2 tests) similar to our NAEP tests. The age 14 and 16 scores were based on the admittedly ambiguous GSCE point scores. Refer to tables 1 and 2 in the linked paper above. The Black n was ~ 1200. (3) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE, 1997-2003) study — a (nationally representative?) longitudinal study which began in 2003. The age 11 scores which I referred to were the Math and Reading test score. The Black n was ~ 150. (The actually differences was about .23 SD, not 0 SD as I initially reported.) This evidence needs to be added to that which I previously mentioned, such as the UK LD/MR rates, which you curiously didn’t seem to be interested in..

      So to answer your questions: (1) Yes, the data is representative. (2) Yes, the data is cobbled together from separate studies. (3) No, the LSYPE data is not from 5 year olds but from 11-16 year olds. (4) In the linked studies you can see the representativity by ethnicity of the tested relative to the sample population. (5) You can find n’s in the other papers that I linked to. I noted “You can see an alternative analysis of the data, broken down by test scores and point scores in tables 1 and 2 here.” The results are basically the same. (6) If you don’t like the paper from which I stole the graph, refer yourself to the linked DFES papers. (7) When it comes to sample size, we are dealing with the relative weight of evidence. (8) (fertility) :0)

      I’m just building a case here.

  8. Guessedworker says:


    First question: do you have any test data (not school exam data) taken from segregated groups (don’t assume that the IQ of British kids in African-colonised parts of Britain are faithfully revealed by exam results – there is such a thing as culture shock, you know).

    Second question: Do you claim that there is, similarly, little or no physiological basis for the difference in average IQ between Africans and East Asian and Ashkenazic populations? If not, why not?

    Third Question: If there is little or no physiological basis for racial differences in average IQ, why are there racial differences in cranial cavity volume? Are Africans in the West all growing bigger craniums? If not (they’re not), is there a special “Marx Factor” in the human brain which makes the small, light African model work much more efficiently that, say, the Ashkenazic model, just so things end up all nice and equal, you know? Should we perhaps overturn the theory of natural selection and fitness to environment to accommodate this new-found and extremely sympatico equality?

    Fourth question: How does your model for African equalness cross the pond? Not so well, eh? Got any explanation for that (aside from bad data).

    • Chuck says:

      (1) I analyzed and discussed all the known data from ~2000 onhere. If you have any to add, let’s see it.
      (2) More plausibile than ‘cultural shock’ is positive discrimination for Blacks in recent years. Let me quote one linked paper:

      The study revealed that Black Caribbean pupils are concentrated in a very small number of schools. Just 6% of primary schools nationally contain almost three-quarters of all Black Caribbean pupils in the cohort….

      …The same schools that were more effective for White British pupils were also more effective for Black Caribbean pupils, although in the more effective schools there was a tendency for White British pupils to gain to a proportionately greater degree….

      …But the results also suggest the possibility of an equity- effectiveness trade-off where the most effective schools raise the achievement of all pupil groupings but at the same time can increase the White British-Black Caribbean gap. Thus if all schools improve so they perform at the level of the most effective, then the difference in the overall achievement of White British and Black Caribbean pupils might actually increase. To counter this effect will require positive discrimination and a substantial switch of human and material resources towards programmes in areas with a large proportion of minority or disadvantaged students (Mortimore & Whitty, 1997). (Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty and prior achievement)

      So Blacks are concentrated in a few schools. By redistributing resources, the national gaps could, in principle, be close, while not closing the intra-school gap.

      (3) I never said that the data supports a hypothesis of no genetic differences. Many of the findings show an increasing gap with cognitive complexity, which is consistent with a g/genetic hypothesis:

      All other things being equal, for every three White British students entered for the higher tier only two Black Caribbean students are entered. The evidence points to systematic under-representation of Black Caribbean students in entry to the higher tier examinations at age 14. It is also notable that the White British-Black Caribbean achievement gap is most pronounced for the tiered mathematics (-.54 SD) and science (-.52 SD) tests, but substantially smaller for the English test which is not tiered (-.30 SD)…. (The White British-Black Caribbean achievement gap: Tests, tiers and teacher expectations)

      (4) Globally, there are large physiological differences. No doubt. But I am claiming, contra Lynn, that the hypothesis that these differences are largely additively genetically conditioned is not supported by the UK or Dutch immigrant data.

      (5) I’ve extensively discussed the brain size argument (and others) here. Since the correlation between brain size and IQ is, at most, .4 and since the differences in brain size between Blacks and Whites raised in the same environment is at most .7 (probably much less), assuming that the whole difference in size is congenital, at maximum the genetic difference in IQ, conditioned by brain size, would be 0.3 SD, which is, in terms of effect size, small.

      • [Edited]

        Your data is no good if you do not make allowance for (i) the effects of extreme neo-Marxist egalitarianism and (ii) culture shock. Do you do so? No, you assume that the modern exam system is geared to the same ends as in the 1950s.

        Well, extreme egalitarianism is not meant to permit white children to succeed, or even to try to do well. These are the words of Philip Beadle in a teacher tv film that was available on YouTube until recently:

        Difficulties about taking the subject on involve being explicit about race, which can be uncomfortable. You cannot have a properly functioning multicultural educational system when the needs of one social and ethnic group are completely ignored. I’ve sat through whole rafts of assemblies about Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, and Jessie Owens, where the only white person mentioned all term is Adolf Hitler. And I’ve watched the white kids squirm with guilt and embarrassment and shame as they are force-fed a daily diet of the doctrine of their own obsolescence.

        How is it possible to reverse generations of ambivalence particularly towards education if they only rarely see images of themselves in school, and most of these are negative?

        Black History Month is controversial among the white working-class – not in that they don’t recognise the right of black people’s celebration of their own culture and history, but the fact that there is no single event through which they may investigate their own culture, and how they come to be here.”

        You try to argue that culture shock can be dismissed. Why? Perhaps you should start thinking seriously about the plight of my English people in the areas currently colonised by foreign populations. Culture shock is easy to ascertain among white children. Listen to the prevalence of speech patterns drawn from blacks – that’s common in large areas of south London, for example. Look at the numbers of white girls in “relationships” with negroes. Look at the “wigger” behaviour of white boys trying to compete. Think of what belongs to them which has ceased to work for them, and which they are replacing with negro junk. Extrapolate. Think. This is an area of virgin research I am directing you towards. It is incredibly important that people take it seriously.

        On brain size, your problem is that, in company with all the psychometrists whose work I have ever read, you are assuming that the European brain and the SSA brain do the same tasks, and can be assumed equal for the purposes of measuring g.

        Obviously, in terms of making adaptive life choiced over maladaptive ones they do do the same tasks. But the small, light African brain is weak at abstraction, the gift on which European intellectual, moral, social, and civilisational advancement is predicated. Hence, for example, African languages are grammatical simple, and do not allow complex comparisons in time or space to be expressed.

        If you were a creative thinker instead of a workhorse you might make something useful out of ideas such as these. For heavens sake, make a better effort to understand the world.

        • Chuck says:


          (A) There are two key issues here: (1) The accuracy of my data and (2) the reliability of it as an index of between population differences in general mental ability. Your argument seems to concern (2). When it comes to this, I noted:

          Defenders of this embattled hypothesis need to account for the absence of more than trivial to small gaps, given the large differences between social classes and, more importantly, given the substantial correlation (.7) found between g and these test scores. The Chinese sample, of course, suggests that more than g is involved in population differences — but before you dismiss these achievement scores refer yourself to Gottfredson’s Implications of Cognitive Differences for Schooling Within Diverse Societies, especially table 3 and page 28 to 30. I’m sure that this paper is quite familiar to many of you. In that regards, at very least you have to grant that the near absence of an achievement gap in the UK is as much evidence against a UK IQ gap as the presence of an achievement gap in the US is evidence for a US IQ gap. Hereditarians have routinely argued that the US achievement gap is evidence of an IQ gaps (for example, Rushton and Jensen 2010, section 4), so my evidence should be in good standing.

          Again, within the UK population, math plus reading achievement test scores are highly correlated with g (at 0.7). This is the same correlation as found in the US. Given this correlation, it can’t be argued that these tests are poor measures of g (e.g., “effects of extreme neo-Marxist egalitarianism”). It could be argued, though, that the between group differences in tests scores are unreliable measures of the between group differences in g — due to motivational differences, “cultural shock”, stereotype threat affecting Whites, low expectations for whites, etc.. As I noted, I can’t, yet, rule this possibility out. To do so I need ages 10-20 IQ data broken down by ethnicity. And no one seems to have it. As for g differences for kids under 10, I’ve already pointed to findings from a recent nationally representative study. You can compare those differences with the ones from a generation or two ago.

          Of course, even if I manage to show small g differences going into adulthood, I imagine that all the environmentalist arguments for why this doesn’t entail small additive genetic differences will be trotted out. But I have already replied to this, here.

          (B) Brain size. If we throw out the not unreasonable assumption that the correlation between g and brain size is the same between as within populations, we have no empirical grounds to make any claims. It could be, then, that the light African brain is like the light female brain — smaller but equal in g capacity. Or it could be that the light African brain is superior in g capacity.

  9. statsquatch says:

    I see that they did collect a representative sample for the MCS and the LYSPE. What I am not convinced of is that all the kids that started in the LYSPE sat for the GCSE. The web site refers to using administrative data which I assume is the actual scores. Still the data is probably of higher quality than some of stuff Lynn gets.

    I missed the interesting Tard data. Looking at the at the unadjusted ORR of 1.6 of the Caribbean and assuming a white retard rate of 2.3% then there is at most a .2 SD difference. Keep in mind though that the US version of the stat ranges from 1.6 to 2.1 which correspond to differences of .2 to .4 SD. And we know that the there is a one SD difference in the US. The African data could be explained by high selection though but I admit it is odd. It does not match the 5 year old MCS data. Curious….

  10. R. Jones says:

    As a US observer, my uninformed first impression is that there is something deeply dysfunctional about whites in the UK. It is possible that a significant amount of dysgenics has taken place there with the welfare state and whatnot?

    • Indeed there is something deeply dysfunctional in Britain today. We are being race-replaced by Africans and Asians. Our dissent has been dehumanised. Our voices are ignored, our words spat upon. Our culture is considered worthless. We are being genocided, for that is the true historical meaning of race-replacement, and like any genocide it involves coercion by those who hold power.

      The welfare state is a very small part of it.

  11. Chuck says:


    I’ve emailed Lynn and Rushton a couple of times. No response. Steve Sailer reads my blog now and then. I’m sure that if he feels that the findings are of worth he will let Lynn and others at the HBD institute know.

  12. Mike43 says:

    The problem with this analysis is that it is using data that is not accurate enough. Extrapolating from group tests is not as accurate as individualized testing. By that I mean the Wechsler series, Woodcock Johnson, etc.

    Any high level test (GSCE, SAT, ACT) has been designed to close gaps. Only the strict control group testing of individualized norm referenced tests can produce the data you need.

    But it’s locked up deep in the publisher’s vaults.

  13. Greying Wanderer says:

    Genocidal evidence from those engineering and advocating the genocide – not surprising.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s