Is the Aboriginal (AUS) IQ really 62?

Re: Civilization is (Probably) Doomed at 38:40

It can’t be stressed enough that Lynn’s estimates are unreliable. Ergo, do not rely on them. (For example, in the Global Bell Curve, pg. 50, Lynn cites De Bertoli and Creswell (2004) as showing a 1.6 to 1.82 SD gap for PISA (2000) reading, math, and science tests for Aborigines and non-Aborigines. He then goes on to say, “The Aborigines and Europeans differ on intelligence by 38 points, equivalent to 2.5 SD. Thus Aborigines performed a bit better on these educational tests than would be expected from their IQs.”) This is based on his deflated SD of 50. (“The standard deviations were approximately 50.”) In reality, the standard deviations were about 100, and the standardized gap was about 0.8 SD.)

Note that this paper was published the same year as Richard Lynn’s Global Bell Curve (in which which Lynn judiciously estimated an Aboriginal IQ of 62).

Leigh and Gong, 2008. Estimating Cognitive Gaps Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians

Refer to table 1, which summarizes the results of several large studies, results which agree with others that I have pointed to (e.g., Dalton, 2010 and Thomson et al., 2010). The Aboriginal-non Aboriginal gap is 1 SD at most.

It’s worth noting that the authors of this paper are not particularity unrealistic about race:

Not all of the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children should be regarded as being causal. On the PPVT (a test of language skills), about two-thirds of the racial test score gap appears to be due to differences in socio-economic factors. On the WAI test (a test of school readiness), about one-third of the racial gap is due to differences in socio-economic factors. From a social policy perspective, this implies that policies to improve incomes and parental education may partly close the Indigenous/non-Indigenous test score gap, but are unlikely to bring Indigenous children’s test scores up to parity with non-Indigenous children.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Is the Aboriginal (AUS) IQ really 62?

  1. JL says:

    On admixture in Aborigines from this study:

    The Australian component ranged from 28% to 100% with an average of 64% (Figure 4). As a result of the strong ascertainment bias of HapMap and Affymetrix SNPs, however, which were largely identified from European ancestry populations, the Aboriginal component might be underestimated.

    They got similar results using uniparental markers:

    From these observations (37.5% male and 97.5% female Aboriginal Australian ancestors), the expected autosomal ancestry fraction is ~67%, close to the observed value of 64%.

    So the Euro admixture in Aborigines is probably closer to 35% than 25%.

    • Chuck says:

      JL, when you get a chance, could you reply to my query concerning the regression to the mean studies?

    • Chuck says:

      Damn I had a long post an it got deleted.

      Two points. The paper INTERMARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA:Patterns by birthplace, ancestry, religion and indigenous status” puts the ,miscegination rate at 50 percent in 2001 and 2006.

      We are also told:

      “Australian residents have shown an increased propensity to identify as indigenous. The number identifying as such in recent censuses rose from 250,738 in 1986 to 414,390 in 1996 (ABS 2006), and 455,028 in 2006, representing 2.4 per cent of Australia’s population (ABS 2007b). Over and above natural increase, more people have come to think of themselves as indigenous and/or are more inclined to declare themselves as such on the census returns over the past couple of decades. This in turn may imply greater pride in indigenous identity.,,,As late as the 1960s, only a small minority of non-indigenous Australians were prepared to say that they would accept a full-blood or part-Aboriginal person as a relative by marriage into their family (Goot and Rowse 2007).”

      For comparison the population was 106,000, 139,000.and 171,000 in 1961, 1971, 1981

      So it looks like we have three factors: pre-1981 admixture in a small less admixed population. A wave, from 1986 to 1996, of reidentification by those who could passed as white. And not rampant admixture picking up in the late 80s to now.

      So probably contemporaneous kids and adolescents are on average at least 50% mixed. Now it looks like we have too large of a gap.


    • Chuck says:

      Here’s a large study with Raven’s in it
      Would you mind taking a look at it an giving me your thoughts? The difference isn’t particularly big.

  2. Steve Sailer says:

    I just posted a picture of Evonne Goolagong, who won Wimbledon 41 years ago. She looks kind of Aboriginal, but she also looks kind of like my late Aunt Annette.

    So, this study merely asks if the child is Aboriginal or not (there’s not provision to mark anybody as part Aboriginal), and it’s a sample born in the 21st Century, and it excludes Aboriginal reservations. So, I’m guessing admixture might be approaching 50% in this study.

    • Chuck says:

      I commented to JL above. 50% might be an underestimate. The 2001 intermarriage rate was 50%. So if the population was already 33% mixed….

      And it seems that you were right about the push to idenitify….

      Anyways, this doesn’t settle the issue. Now we need to see if Australia has colorism and if the Aboriginese in less mixed areas do worse in more (urban ones).

      It’s odd that the Standard deviations aren’t monstrous. BYW.

  3. Kiwiguy says:

    Australian rugby league legend Laurie Daley caused some surprise apparently when he revealed he was Aboriginal. As he notes, he was generally thought to be part Greek or Italian.

  4. Steve Sailer says:

    There are advantages to identifying as Aboriginal in modern Australia. Most Aboriginal Rights spokespersons look at least as white as Aboriginal.

    • Chuck says:

      I doubt that the 14 year old PISA takers are self-identifying en masse as Aborigines to get their colored priveleges. As for adults, has the aboriginal population exploded in the last couple of decades? Generally, to the extent this is attenuating the difference, we should expect inflated standard deviations.

    • Chuck says:

      If you missed it, I’ve also pointed to the following:

      Dalton, 2011. US Educational Achievement on International Assessments: The Role of Race and Ethnicity. See: Table 3. TIMSS 2007 achievement differences between majority and minority students in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

      Thomson et al., 2010. Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009 (see p. 63, 189, and 233 for reading, math, and science non-aborigine/aborigine gaps, respectively)

      I think ~1 (phenotypic) SD is a safe bet.

    • Kiwiguy says:

      There advantages in NZ too. For example both co-leaders of the Maori Party have white fathers, but are only ever referred to as Maori. There are benefits in terms of affirmative action for medical and law school, scholarships, government departments seeking to meet EEO and diversity guidelines etc.

      For a sporting example, to be eligible for the Maori All Blacks you require at least 1/16 Māori ancestry.

    • Chuck says:

      For an example of what I’m talking about with regards to Lynn, In the GBC, he lists results from the 2000 PISA. He derived a 1.8 SD difference from an ~ 80 point difference by claiming that the SD was 50. I just checked the paper he cited — not only does he get the numbers wrong, but more grossly he deflates the SD down from 100. (You can google search for then or check International Explorer). Lynn then goes on to try to account for the only 1.8 SD differences, given his supposed 2.5 SD difference.

      He’s a great guy, don’t get me wrong. His data is just unreliable.

      It seems to me that we have two problems (1) Few are providing constructive criticisms of his data. From the left, it’s just disdain or denial. (2) HBD is lacking a “brain trust.” We know this now because — Chuck with his atrophying brain — has been able to uncover numerous holes.

      You have to admit that in light of this, the UK results, and the Dutch results — Lynn’s 50/50 hypothesis is untenable. We are down to maybe a 33%/66% hypothesis at best. And we’re quite a world away from Nyborg’s claim the Africans have a genotypic IQ of 70.

      Some one really needs to dig around for updated data. I was hoping that you would ask members of your HBD group to.

      Look, it might be that the egalitarians were mostly — 85% — right.

      • Steve Sailer says:

        He’s an old guy.

        How reliable are Rindermann’s numbers?

        • Chuck says:

          Ya and I have a brain disease, but my estimates are rarely that far off. As for Rindermann, did he estimate the Aborigine IQ?

          Ok, granting the data used in my most recent post, the regional pattern of differences in AUS might not be horribly inconsistent with a genetic hypothesis. I have my doubts though. Why aren’t the SDs massive? Why are there no reports of a massive cohort narrowing? Whatever. Let’s drop the Aboriginal point.

          As for Kenya, the way to resolve this would be to check the longitudinal Life Panal Survey. Raven’s matrices was used as a measure of IQ; the sample size is >7,000; it’s longitudinal; and it’s recent: The data has been used in a number of papers, such as: “Plasmodium falciparum, anaemia and cognitive and educational
          performance among school children in an area of moderate
          malaria transmission: baseline results of a cluster randomized
          trial on the coast of Kenya” (FYI: deworming has no effect on Raven’s). I have been unable to find raw scores, though.

          Whatever the case and more importantly, I’ve noticed that no one has provided counter UK evidence. As JL noted, the trivial gaps there are the strongest case agaist a genetic hypothesis, yet. Why aren’t there no Aboriginal-non sized gaps in the UK? Eh?

  5. x says:

    i grew up in small town country australia in a significantly indigenous town (15-20%). i don’t trust my own judgements very much, especially as subjective estimates of admixture can be so faulty, but aboriginals largely ‘look’ highly admixed to me. isn’t the indigenous-non indigenous marriage rate at over 50% now?

  6. formerly no name says:

    No one brings up the famous Andrew Bolt case?

  7. x says:

    in all fairness i never thought the 63 figure was plausible to begin with. one question about it that i always had was what exactly it was based on; aborigials of full ancestry living in very remote communities in the northern territory, western nsw and elsewhere or aboriginals, including more ‘urbanised’ samples living in rural centres and the major cities.

  8. x says:

    the conditions of the very remote aboriginal communities are very poor and may even approach third world status. i have been to various.

  9. x says:

    article is relevant for a couple of details, though it wasnt quite what i was looking for..

    Health, substance-abuse and mental problems are also rife, with average life expectancy for an Aboriginal man just over 35 years.

  10. dennis says:

    how can the standard deviation be 100, I smell bullshit, because this would mean that about 16% of the people tested would be expected to score above 162, it would also follow that 16% were expected to score at -38, neither of these are feasible expectations, so I can safely disregard everything you said.

  11. dennis says:

    I can understand standard deviations just fine, I looked back at the original post and realized my mistake, I read the part about the SD being for the direct measurement of IQ, not for the PISA test. what I said would still be correct if it was about IQs, but for the PISA it is not.

  12. Bobby J says:

    WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE FROM? I’m Australian, not Aboriginal. There are many many mistakes in your conversation, I will attempt to make a list of as many as I can.

    1) ”The last full blood aboriginal died along time ago.”
    a) Aboriginal is always written with a Capital “‘A'”
    b) Being Aboriginal is not measured by percentages of blood.
    c) I personal know many Aboriginal people who only have ancestors that are Aboriginal and their families have been connected to the land for 60 000 years.
    2) ‘Most people claiming to be “Aboriginal” are not! It’s just a grab for money!’
    What money, which funds do Aboriginal people get that other people do not get, I work five days a week helping people with disabilities allocating funds for one of the state Governments, I have extensive experience working with Aboriginal families and getting them funded support. There is no extra money for being Aboriginal if you know where it is tell me if not shut the fuck up.
    3) ‘’There are no original aboriginal people in Tasmania’’ once again I have meet these people, I have talked to them about culture and history and I would call them my friends. They are real people and have traditions that have been around for thousands of years.
    4) ‘’Every one here is talking iq’s and trying to make out that these test are irrelevant to aboriginal people’’
    I would suggest that you read a Chapter called Á History of Psychology in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Mental Health, Rickwood, Dudgeon and Grildley, it will show you why it matters and some reading might help with you general stupidity.
    5) ‘’They are a stone age people’’
    The stupidity of this statement need little comment, However the Stone age people lived in harmony with the environment, something that our ‘’advanced’’ culture is unable or unwilling to do. When the Europeans first meet Aboriginal people Europeans were marrying cousins for generations were as Aboriginal people had complex skin systems that prevented wrong marrying and in breading. By the way the reference above Pat Dudgeon: Aboriginal woman with a P hD.

    So there are five good examples of why you should listen to what Aboriginal people have to say about themselves and not some crank half brained drop kick who would present Andrew Bolts views as his own. Just because you read something in the picture story book that is the Herald Sun does not mean that they are your view get out in the real world and talk to real people.

    • Anonymous says:

      All universities have special (much lower) entrance requirements and scholarships for Aborigines.

      All Australia state and federal public services all have jobs that only Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders may apply for.

      The last Tasmanian Aborigines Truganini died in 1876. ALL Tasmanian aborigines have predominantly European ancestry. Many Tasmanian “Aborigines” have NO aboriginal ancestors whatsoever.

  13. Dave says:

    There is no greater threat to the delusional egalitarians among us than to allow the topic of the vastly different racial differences regarding IQ’s to be broached.
    Why are you people so afraid?
    This knowledge may not always be warm & fuzzy, but it can lead us in directions that may offer better alternatives for most of the failing Black children in the US schools.

    • Cole says:

      Because every time anyone so much as mention anything re. low IQs for a specific race they are automatically labelled a racist by the self-righteous who fail to consider the research.

  14. Cole says:

    I thought the IQ = 60s range is mainly referencing pure blood Aborigines whereas the IQ for mixed blood Aborigines is higher? Regardless of whether it’s 1 SD or 2 SD below the European average (1 SD is a huge gap in itself) the low average IQ is a fact and is an important factor to consider so that more effective targeted initiatives and policies can be developed. Then again the issue is far to sensitive for politicians to touch upon so everyone tends to result to self-righteous mindless spending on initiatives that may or may not work.

    Education is a value that needs to be ingrained into cultural standards. Simply improving access isn’t enough There needs to be an inherent motivation by Indigenous Australians to want to pursue education and pass those values onto their children as well.

  15. CShadow says:

    Obviously 99% of the comments here are written by people who have no clue what an IQ of 60 means. I’d advise them to STFU.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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