Hey, I sent you the link.The guy claims in this post that the black.What I q gap is narrowing and that the book Guns and steel is the reason why africa is poor And some also other things, but IQ.I'm not educated enough to answer
I mean, I didn't reply to your earlier comment because you didn't say what you wanted. If you want an answer, just ask what you want exactly instead of whether you can ask. Which paper you need help with?
First of all, I would have appreciated if you asked that question in another blog article, because this post about race differences has nothing to do with the current post (which is about academic papers abstract and free market), so answering this here derails completely with the subject of my post.
Anyway, that blog article is a very selective literature review. Starting by Toto et al (2018) who found low IQ heritability for Sudanese. Two things. Raven only is not a sufficient measure. Moreover, it's now widely known that the reasoning test fails the measurement invariance assumption in Sub-Saharan Africa, which renders interpretation with developed (especially western) countries rather difficult. Another issue comes from the descriptive table. There is no distribution of scores, but the minimum scores are 2 and 4 for DZ and MZ respectively. In a 60 item test, a score of 2 or 4 on the Raven, given that the first couple items are items that have obvious answers, you shouldn't be scoring as low as 2 or 4, because if that's the case, it means the test is not suitable for these people, i.e., they are not in a situation in which they can do the test properly. So, abnormally low raw scores on Raven should be removed. A study not mentioned is Hur & Bates (2019) who showed that in Nigeria, there is no GxE effect. This provides a good counterweight to both Toto et al 2018 & Turkheimer et al 2003. Speaking of the latter, the article cherry picks Turkheimer and does not even mention the other papers on GxE. But I did here:
The criticism of transracial adoption relies on Thomas' paper, but I wonder why that article didn't care to cite the subsequent answers to Thomas' paper? Such as Kirkegaard et al. (2019) on Korean adoption studies. While the korean adoptees may not be late adopted, they were negatively selected because mothers who abandon their kids have lower IQs. Looking at these Korean adoption papers too, there is also no relationship between age of adoption and IQ. In mentioning IQ-age of adoption relationship, Drew Thomas did not draw attention to the fact that adopted children, after leaving the institution, consistently outperformed those left behind in terms of cognitive and achievement outcomes but also often catch up to their current (environmental) non-adopted peers or siblings with respect to cognitive abilities (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005). I've also argued in my article that while adoption research (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005) often points out that age of adoption could be an important factor determining achievement and cognitive trajectories (despite age of adoption showing no relationship with IQ), such a relationship is pointless if the adoptees did not experience severe adversities prior to adoption (Odenstad et al., 2008; Lindblad et al., 2009). Other important yet ignored details. Adoption IQ gains are negatively related with g. The effect of malnutrition on IQ also fade out with age, so Thomas' take on the Frydman & Lynn study should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The article follows up with Thomas' criticism of the MTRAS by Scarr & Weinberg. Here, Thomas argued the IQ gap widening (seen as being consistent with the hereditarian model) is due to attrition affecting whites but he did not say that blacks/interracials experienced nontrivial attrition as well, and he did not explain why attrition is random with respect to IQ for blacks but not for whites (only the white group lost some low IQ people). Generally, attrition is nonrandom, affecting low IQ people, so why the blacks weren't affected? My interpretation then is that if attrition there is, it does not explain the IQ gap, and rather it complicates the interpretation of the study. Another interpretation is that blacks were already a select group, potentially buffering them from typical attrition drivers like poverty, or that whites were placed in families which were much less stable. Regarding the other adoption papers that supposedly (according to Thomas) did not fit the hereditarian model, I talked about it, as well as Warne.
Then unsurprisingly the article uses Flynn effect as a rebuttal to both heritability and race IQ gap yet they are unrelated. Once more with this kind of delusionist article, Flynn effect is seen as true intelligence gain, but it's not. I provided enough proof of it 10+ years ago, and people just don't care.
The interpretation on the high heritability of other traits in light of secular changes is misleading. For instance, in the case of height, it's more that earlier cohorts did not reach full potential due to undernutrition in some share of the population.
Also, no hereditarians ever claimed that genetic effects imply the traits can't be changed, but that it puts a certain limit on how you can manipulate the trait. The article also refers multiple times to how heritability is measured, without ever trying to explain what is the meaning of such a nonsensical sentence, e.g., "But the way heritability is measured can make it appear that way."
About the black british scores on the GCSE, one must remember these immigrants are highly selected. Moreover, the reality is that GCSE likely reflects a big factor that is unrelated to intelligence because other tests (PISA, CAT, CEM) in UK show large BW cognitive gap, yet a much smaller one based on GCSE. Also recent waves of immigrants are more highly selected. More importantly perhaps is that it's not the black score that is too high but the white score that is too low, since chinese perform 1SD above whites on the GCSE but their advantage on other tests is much smaller. So the GCSE is not predictive of other test scores.
My own rebuttal reads as follows: the study found a negative relationship between black gains and g, indicating black gains are not g loaded. Dickens & Flynn dismiss such interpretation because g-score is rising, but they are not interpreting g score correctly, and they are not interpreting Jensen's MCV results correctly either. Since all IQ tests measure g, it follows obviously that g scores should be rising if IQ is rising, as g score is just a weighted mean. MCV on the other hand simulates the expected score based on changing g loading magnitude.
The argument used in the BW crime rate section is ridiculous, e.g., "African-Americans up to 25% “better” than Africans—more intelligent and less prone to crime—due to the supposed superiority of white genes". It completely ignores societal context. Take South Africa. Criminality suddenly went up at the end of the "white rule" when it was replaced by the "black rule". The author also makes the assumption of a purely genetic effect, which is once again a straw man.
Hey, I sent you the link.The guy claims in this post that the black.What I q gap is narrowing and that the book Guns and steel is the reason why africa is poor And some also other things, but IQ.I'm not educated enough to answer
Could I ask you to take a look at a paper and possibly make a response to it.Would that be okay for me to ask you that
I mean, I didn't reply to your earlier comment because you didn't say what you wanted. If you want an answer, just ask what you want exactly instead of whether you can ask. Which paper you need help with?
Here's the paper here.Could you make like a short reply to this https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/iq-race-and-racism
First of all, I would have appreciated if you asked that question in another blog article, because this post about race differences has nothing to do with the current post (which is about academic papers abstract and free market), so answering this here derails completely with the subject of my post.
Anyway, that blog article is a very selective literature review. Starting by Toto et al (2018) who found low IQ heritability for Sudanese. Two things. Raven only is not a sufficient measure. Moreover, it's now widely known that the reasoning test fails the measurement invariance assumption in Sub-Saharan Africa, which renders interpretation with developed (especially western) countries rather difficult. Another issue comes from the descriptive table. There is no distribution of scores, but the minimum scores are 2 and 4 for DZ and MZ respectively. In a 60 item test, a score of 2 or 4 on the Raven, given that the first couple items are items that have obvious answers, you shouldn't be scoring as low as 2 or 4, because if that's the case, it means the test is not suitable for these people, i.e., they are not in a situation in which they can do the test properly. So, abnormally low raw scores on Raven should be removed. A study not mentioned is Hur & Bates (2019) who showed that in Nigeria, there is no GxE effect. This provides a good counterweight to both Toto et al 2018 & Turkheimer et al 2003. Speaking of the latter, the article cherry picks Turkheimer and does not even mention the other papers on GxE. But I did here:
https://menghu.substack.com/p/sometimes-biased-but-not-systematically
The criticism of transracial adoption relies on Thomas' paper, but I wonder why that article didn't care to cite the subsequent answers to Thomas' paper? Such as Kirkegaard et al. (2019) on Korean adoption studies. While the korean adoptees may not be late adopted, they were negatively selected because mothers who abandon their kids have lower IQs. Looking at these Korean adoption papers too, there is also no relationship between age of adoption and IQ. In mentioning IQ-age of adoption relationship, Drew Thomas did not draw attention to the fact that adopted children, after leaving the institution, consistently outperformed those left behind in terms of cognitive and achievement outcomes but also often catch up to their current (environmental) non-adopted peers or siblings with respect to cognitive abilities (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005). I've also argued in my article that while adoption research (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005) often points out that age of adoption could be an important factor determining achievement and cognitive trajectories (despite age of adoption showing no relationship with IQ), such a relationship is pointless if the adoptees did not experience severe adversities prior to adoption (Odenstad et al., 2008; Lindblad et al., 2009). Other important yet ignored details. Adoption IQ gains are negatively related with g. The effect of malnutrition on IQ also fade out with age, so Thomas' take on the Frydman & Lynn study should be taken with a pinch of salt.
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/10
https://menghu.substack.com/p/adoption-iq-gain-of-institutionalized-deprived-children-so-many-problems
The article follows up with Thomas' criticism of the MTRAS by Scarr & Weinberg. Here, Thomas argued the IQ gap widening (seen as being consistent with the hereditarian model) is due to attrition affecting whites but he did not say that blacks/interracials experienced nontrivial attrition as well, and he did not explain why attrition is random with respect to IQ for blacks but not for whites (only the white group lost some low IQ people). Generally, attrition is nonrandom, affecting low IQ people, so why the blacks weren't affected? My interpretation then is that if attrition there is, it does not explain the IQ gap, and rather it complicates the interpretation of the study. Another interpretation is that blacks were already a select group, potentially buffering them from typical attrition drivers like poverty, or that whites were placed in families which were much less stable. Regarding the other adoption papers that supposedly (according to Thomas) did not fit the hereditarian model, I talked about it, as well as Warne.
https://menghu.substack.com/p/transracially-adopted-intermediate-iq-hereditarian-nonsense
https://russellwarne.com/2023/07/20/revisiting-moores-transracial-adoption-study/
Then unsurprisingly the article uses Flynn effect as a rebuttal to both heritability and race IQ gap yet they are unrelated. Once more with this kind of delusionist article, Flynn effect is seen as true intelligence gain, but it's not. I provided enough proof of it 10+ years ago, and people just don't care.
https://menghu.substack.com/p/what-is-behind-the-flynn-effect
The interpretation on the high heritability of other traits in light of secular changes is misleading. For instance, in the case of height, it's more that earlier cohorts did not reach full potential due to undernutrition in some share of the population.
Also, no hereditarians ever claimed that genetic effects imply the traits can't be changed, but that it puts a certain limit on how you can manipulate the trait. The article also refers multiple times to how heritability is measured, without ever trying to explain what is the meaning of such a nonsensical sentence, e.g., "But the way heritability is measured can make it appear that way."
About the black british scores on the GCSE, one must remember these immigrants are highly selected. Moreover, the reality is that GCSE likely reflects a big factor that is unrelated to intelligence because other tests (PISA, CAT, CEM) in UK show large BW cognitive gap, yet a much smaller one based on GCSE. Also recent waves of immigrants are more highly selected. More importantly perhaps is that it's not the black score that is too high but the white score that is too low, since chinese perform 1SD above whites on the GCSE but their advantage on other tests is much smaller. So the GCSE is not predictive of other test scores.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351935350_Recent_Studies_of_Ethnic_Differences_in_the_Cognitive_Ability_of_Adolescents_in_the_United_Kingdom
Dickens & Flynn has been dismantled many many years ago by myself and some other bloggers, and researchers (Rushton & Jensen, 2010). https://mh19870410.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/race-and-iq-a-theory-based-review-of-the-research-in-richard-nisbett_s-intelligence-and-how-to-get-it-rushton-jensen-2010.pdf
My own rebuttal reads as follows: the study found a negative relationship between black gains and g, indicating black gains are not g loaded. Dickens & Flynn dismiss such interpretation because g-score is rising, but they are not interpreting g score correctly, and they are not interpreting Jensen's MCV results correctly either. Since all IQ tests measure g, it follows obviously that g scores should be rising if IQ is rising, as g score is just a weighted mean. MCV on the other hand simulates the expected score based on changing g loading magnitude.
The argument used in the BW crime rate section is ridiculous, e.g., "African-Americans up to 25% “better” than Africans—more intelligent and less prone to crime—due to the supposed superiority of white genes". It completely ignores societal context. Take South Africa. Criminality suddenly went up at the end of the "white rule" when it was replaced by the "black rule". The author also makes the assumption of a purely genetic effect, which is once again a straw man.
That blacks are more harshly judged than whites requires more consistent evidence. I have some evidence of the contrary (see the link below). The overall picture is complicated obviously, as there are multiple studies showing blacks are more harshly judged, but again the evidence is not often robust. https://humanvarieties.org/2014/08/25/the-elusive-x-factor-or-why-jonathan-kaplan-is-wrong-about-race-and-iq/
The point about poor reliability of crime statistics must require analyses, but the author provides nothing. Just conjectures.
Thank you.
Excellent Reply