Does the SAT measure intelligence?

Test Preparation
161

<p>continued </p>

<p>

[quote]

These experiments do not lend support to any existing or plausible environmental theories for the remaining lower intelligence scores of people of African descent in Western societies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study found that, by adulthood, the difference in IQ scores between adopted black and adopted white children raised side by side in the same high income households in mostly homogeneous Northern US upper class neighborhoods was 18 IQ points (p 185):</p>

<p>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study</p>

<p>IQ at Age 7 IQ at Age 17</p>

<p>W-W 111.5 W-W 101.5
W-B 105.4 W-B 93.2
B-B 91.4 B-B 83.7</p>

<p>W-W = Adopted children with two white biological parents.
W-B = Adopted children with one black and one white biological parent.
B-B = Adopted children with two black biological parents.</p>

<p>The W-W/W-B difference is 8.3 IQ points. The B-W/B-B difference is 9.5 IQ points. And the W-W/B-B difference is 17.8 IQ points.</p>

<p>The difference in IQ scores between 2 black biological parent adoptees and 1 black biological parent adoptees is nearly 10 IQ points despite the fact that both share the exact same social identity.</p>

<p>Similarly a dozen mixed race children that were raised under some mistaken information that they had two black biological parents nevertheless developed IQ scores like the other mixed race children.</p>

<p>There are no simple or plausible environmental theories to explain these kinds of findings.</p>

<p>An additional popular argument is that the Flynn Effect, the observed rise in IQ scores over time, is evidence that African-Americans or African countries will eventually reach parity with white norms. This typically includes the premise that white intelligence in the recent past was even lower than modern black intelligence. A typical example:</p>

<pre><code>US Blacks, with an average IQ today of 85, have the same IQ as US Whites with an IQ of 100 in 1957. If 1957 US Whites were not stupid, then neither are US Blacks today. It’s time to shut up about the “low Black IQ”, since by any reasonable standard, it is not really low at all.
</code></pre>

<p>These arguments are wrong for the simple fact that the Flynn Effect is not a gain in real g factor intelligence, while the differences between nations and ethnic groups are differences in g factor intelligence. These findings led a 2004 team to state:</p>

<pre><code>It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B-W [Black-White] differences in the United States… [so] implications of the Flynn effect for B-W differences appear small…
</code></pre>

<p>James Flynn, namesake of the secular increase, reiterates (DOC) these points:</p>

<pre><code>Factor analysis is a way of measuring this tendency of some people to do better or worse than average across the board; and it yields something called g (a sort of super-correlation coefficient), which psychologists call the general intelligence factor…

When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits – they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press). In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains. (pp 27-28)
</code></pre>

<p>Flynn believes the secular increase represents important changes in specific narrow aspects of developed cognitive style, but not a rise in g intelligence.</p>

<p>It is therefore incorrect that 1945 US whites were less intelligent than 2007 US blacks. The Flynn Effect has little apparent bearing on racial intelligence gaps.</p>

<p>This also applies to developing countries. The Flynn Effect reveals that IQ scores in the developed world were some 1.5-2 standard deviations lower in the beginning of the 20th century. (See this GNXP post for the data) These scores are similar to ones in modern African. Some studies also reveal even faster Flynn gains in developing countries than what we observe in developed countries, and it is argued these countries are simply experiencing, in slight delay, what happened in developed countries during the 20th century. But this interpretation is not tenable if there were no actual rises in g factor intelligence in developed countries. It is incorrect that developed countries had lower g intelligence in the first half of the 20th century corresponding to IQs of 70. Meanwhile, as the Rindermann paper reveals, the scores across modern nations do correspond to real intelligence differences. Likewise, extremely low IQ scores in modern Africa, unlike scores in developed countries prior to the mid-20th century, correspond to genuine deficits in g intelligence.</p>

<p>With improvements in nutrition it is likely that scores in Africa will rise over time. But these increases will probably be genuine and of a different nature than what we observed in developed countries. It is unlikely that scores in Africa will meet or rise above those of African-Americans in the next century.</p>

<p>All of this underlines the fact that IQ can’t always be taken at face value. Gains or differences in IQ exceeding 1 SD can sometimes be ‘hollow’, or unreflective of real general intelligence, being manifested only at the lower order strata of intelligence. (See this paper examining how these false gains can arise through practice effects) Fortunately we have good methods for evaluating the construct validity of the tests and the integrity of the IQ scores.</p>

<hr>

<p>WATSON RECANTS?</p>

<p>Many intellectuals refuse to interpret psychometric claims or ideas about human diversity rationally. Despite 100 years of data showing that ethnic groups differ in their general intelligence, these claims are still rejected on moral grounds. Many of those who deny these claims either implicitly believe that ‘intelligence’ is a reflection of human worth, or believe any claim of such a difference must be a cryptic assertion of racial worth. Either way it prevents the claims from being interpreted fairly, in the factual, rather than normative, manner intended by the people who attempt to discuss this science in an open forum.</p>

<p>Watson’s original statements about the lower general intelligence of Africans were interpreted as statements about the lower human worth of Africans. When Watson then publicly apologized that his words were being misinterpreted in this way and clarified that claims about racial intelligence differences are not claims about human worth, the confused media reported that Watson had recanted his claims about intelligence differences!!</p>

<p>The science journal Nature ran an editorial claiming:</p>

<pre><code>Watson has apologized and retracted the outburst… He acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence.
</code></pre>

<p>Time magazine also suggested he retracted his intelligence claims:</p>

<pre><code>Watson said in a statement he issued at the Royal Society Thursday. “That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

And on that much at least, he’s right. For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of “race”: however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of “intelligence” either
</code></pre>

<p>And Cornelia Dean at the New York Times asserted, not once, but in two separate reports that Watson retracted his intelligence claims. Even doctoring Watson’s apology by cut-and-pasting together two entirely separate Watson quotes:</p>

<pre><code>In an interview published Sunday in The Times of London, Dr. Watson is quoted as saying that while “there are many people of color who are very talented,” he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.”

“All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said,” Dr. Watson said in a statement given to The Associated Press. “There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
</code></pre>

<p>And again in another article:</p>

<pre><code>Dr. Watson… was quoted in The Times of London last week as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent. In the ensuing uproar, he issued a statement apologizing “unreservedly” for the comments, adding “there is no scientific basis for such a belief”.
</code></pre>

<p>False. False. False.</p>

<p>Dear media,</p>

<p>Please read the actual text of James Watson’s apology printed in the Independent, instead of mangling it and interpolating it with your own claims:</p>

<pre><code>To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief…

The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity…

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.
</code></pre>

<p>Watson would only be retracting his intelligence claims if he considered those claims tantamount to claims of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’, which he clearly emphasizes he doesn’t. Watson is saying that questioning that all races are equal in intelligence is not racism, it is trying to figure out why the world looks the way it does, with the greatest engineers and the greatest musicians disproportionately coming, in a systematic way, from different racial backgrounds. In other words culturally separated people of African descent have been musical innovators across a diverse range of cultures (in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, North and South America, and the Caribbean), while culturally separated people of East Asian descent have excelled at math and science across a diverse range of cultures (in Asia, Europe, North and South America, and the Caribbean).</p>

<p>This is not a claim of racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’, either in terms of legal worth or even in terms of overall talent - since groups all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is simply the recognition that people of different genetic heritage, on average, reveal different talents wherever they are found in the world, and there is one explanation that best accounts for these observations: evolution.</p>

<p>In other words, Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished.</p>

<p>The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public.</p>

<hr>

<p>IN CLOSING: WHO DAMAGED SCIENCE?</p>

<p>According to the media and members of the scientific community, James Watson hurt science itself.</p>

<p>An editorial in the top science journal Nature asserted:</p>

<pre><code>Crass comments by Nobel laureates undermine our very ability to debate such issues, and thus damage science itself.
</code></pre>

<p>Similarly the Chicago Tribune featured this:</p>

<pre><code>“The damage to Watson’s legacy from his statements may be difficult to mend,” said Jerry Coyne, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Chicago.

“He’s done tremendous damage to science, to himself and to social equality,” Coyne said. “It makes us all look bad.”
</code></pre>

<p>Along with E.O. Wilson, James Watson is perhaps the most distinguished living figure in American biology, and yet even he was not immune to immediate expulsion from the very lab he created and built up over 40 years of his life, and excommunication from the scientific establishment that celebrated him. All this for one crime: voicing scientific facts and hypotheses that made this community uncomfortable. The same personal and professional fate befell former Harvard president Larry Summers in 2005 for a purely academic discussion of females in science during an economics conference intended for discussing this very subject!</p>

<p>What effect will this continuing intellectual mob violence have on future and current scientists and researchers who want to freely study human genetics, cross-cultural psychology, sociology, or any discipline that may reveal similar facts that have the potential to cause their professional or personal destruction by an intellectual community that resembles the medieval church?</p>

<p>Those who punish, those who lie, those who silence, those who condemn, those who intimidate… they have corrupted science.</p>

<p>They have injured the intellectual openness, freedom, and fairness of our society and our institutions, with untold costs to our collective human well-being.</p>

<p>Not James D. Watson.</p>

<hr>

<p>APPENDIX I</p>

<p>WEST AFRICA</p>

<p>Cameroon
IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 80
Test: CPM
Ref: Berlioz, L. (1955). Etude des progressive matrices faite sur les Africains de Douala. Bulletin du Centre Etude Recherce Psychotechnique, 4, 33-44.</p>

<p>Equatorial Guinea
IQ: 59
Age: 10-14
N: 48
Test: WISC-R
Ref: Fernandez-Bellesteros, R., Juan-Espinoza, M., Colom, R., and Calero, M. D. (1997). Contextual and personal sources of individual differences in intelligence. In J. S. Carlson (Ed.), Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice. Greenwich, Cnn.: JAI Press.</p>

<p>Ghana
IQ: 67
Studies: 4</p>

<p>IQ: 80
Age: Adults
N: 225
Test: CF
Ref: Buj, V. (1981). Average IQ values in various European countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169.</p>

<p>IQ: 62
Age: 15
N: 1,693
Test: CPM
Ref: Glewwe, P. and Jaccoby, H. (1992). Estimating the determinants of Cognitive Achievement in Low Income Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.</p>

<p>IQ: 65 (266)
Age: 16
N: 5,100
Test: TIMSS 2003
Ref: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.) (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.</p>

<p>IQ: 67
TIMSS 2003: 266 (65)
TIMSS sum: 301
TIMSS+PIRLS sum: 304
Sum: 300</p>

<p>Guinea
IQ: 67
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 63
Age: 5-14
N: 50
Test: AAB
Ref: Nissen, H. W., Machover, S. and Kinder, E. F. (1935). A study of performance tests given to a group of native African Negro children. British Journal of Psychology, 25, 308-355.</p>

<p>IQ: 70
Age: Adults
N: 1,144
Test: SPM
Ref: Faverge, J. M. and Falmagne, J. C. (1962). On the interpretation of data in intercultural psychology. Psychologia Africana, 9, 22-96.</p>

<p>Nigeria
IQ: 69
Studies: 5</p>

<p>IQ: 70
Age: Children
N: 480
Test: Leone
Ref: Farron, O. (1966). The test performance of coloured children. Educational Research, 8, 42-57.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 86
Test: SPM
Ref: Wober, M. (1969). The meaning and stability of Raven’s matrices test among Africans. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 220-235.</p>

<p>IQ: 69
Age: 6-13
N: 375
Test: CPM
Ref: Fahrmeier, E. D. (1975). The effect of school attendance on intellectual development in Northern Nigeria. Child Development, 46, 281-285.</p>

<p>IQ: 79 (401)
Age: 15
N: 2,368
Test: IEA-R 1991
Ref: Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.</p>

<p>IQ: 69
ISARS: 34 (69)</p>

<p>Sierra Leone
IQ: 64
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 122
Test: CPM
Ref: Berry, J. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 207-229.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 33
Test: CPM
Ref: Binnie-Dawson, J. L. (1984). Biosocial and endocrine bases of spatial ability. Psychologia, 27, 129-151.</p>

<p>Benin
Burkina Faso
Chad
Cote d’Ivoire
Gabon
The Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Togo</p>

<p>CENTRAL AFRICA</p>

<p>Democratic Republic of Congo
IQ: 65
Studies: 5</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 67
Test: SPM
Ref: Verhagen, P. (1956). Utilite actuelle des tests pour l’etude psychologique des autochones Congolese. Revue de Psychologie Appliquee, 6, 139-151.</p>

<p>IQ: 68
Age: 10-15
N: 222
Test: SPM
Ref: Laroche, J. L. (1959). Effets de repetition du Matrix 38 sur les resultats d’enfants Katangais. Bulletin du Centre d’etudes et Reserches Psychotechniques, 1, 85-99.</p>

<p>IQ: 62
Age: 8
N: 47
Test: KABC
Ref: Boivin, M. J. and Giordani, B. (1993). Improvements in cognitive performance for schoolchildren in Zaire following an iron supplement and treatment for intestinal parasites. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 18, 249-264.</p>

<p>IQ: 68
Age: 7-12
N: 95
Test: LABC
Ref: Boivin, M. J., Giordani, B., and Bornfeld, B. (1995). Use of the tactual performance test for cognitive ability testing with African children. Neuropsychology, 9, 409-417.</p>

<p>IQ: 65
Age: 7-9
N: 130
Test: KABC
Ref: Giordani, B., Boivin, M. J., Opel, B., Nseyila, D. N., and Lauer, R. E. (1996). Use of the K-ABC with children in Zaire. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 43, 5-24.</p>

<p>Republic of Congo
IQ: 64
Studies: 3</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 1,596
Test: SPM
Ref: Latouche, G. L. and Dormeau, G. (1956). La foration professionelle rapide en Afrique Equatoriale Francaise. Brazzaville: Centre d’Etude des Problems du Travail.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: 17-29
N: 320
Test: SPM
Ref: Ombredane, A., Robaye, F., and Robaye, E. (1952). Analyse des resultats d’une application experimentale du matrix 38 a 485 noirs Baluba. Bulletin Centre d’etudes et Reserches Psychotechniques, 7, 235-255.</p>

<p>IQ: 73
Age: 8
N: 73
Test: SPM
Ref: Nkaye, H. N., Huteau, M., and Bonnet, J. P. (1994). Retest effect on cognitive performance on the Raven Matrices in France and in the Congo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 503-510.</p>

<p>Central African Republic
IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 1,149
Test: SPM
Ref: Latouche, G. L. and Dormeau, G. (1956). La foration professionelle rapide en Afrique Equatoriale Francaise. Brazzaville: Centre d’Etude des Problems du Travail.</p>

<p>Rwanda
Burundi</p>

<p>EAST AFRICA</p>

<p>Sudan
IQ: 71
Studies: 4</p>

<p>IQ: 69
Age: 7-16
N: 291
Test: Various
Ref: Fahmy, M. (1964). Initial exploring of the intelligence of Shilluk children. Vita Humana, 7, 164-177.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: 6
N: 80
Test: DAM
Ref: Badri, M. B. (1965a). The use of finger drawing in measuring the Goodenough quotient of culturally deprived Sudanese children. Journal of Psychology, 59, 333-334.</p>

<p>IQ: 74
Age: 9
N: 292
Test: DAM
Ref: Badri, M. B. (1965b). Influence of modernization on Goodenough quotients of Sudanese children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 20, 931-932.</p>

<p>IQ: 72
Age: 8-12
N: 148
Test: SPM
Ref: Ahmed, R. A. (1989). The development of number, space, quantity, and reasoning concepts in Sudanese schoolchildren. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), Cross Cultural Research in Human Development. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.</p>

<p>Kenya
IQ: 72
Studies: 6</p>

<p>IQ: 69
Age: Adults
N: 205
Test: CPM
Ref: Boissiere, M., Knight, J. B., and Sabot, R. H. (1985). Earnings, schooling, ability, and cognitive skills. American Economic Review, 75,1016-1030.</p>

<p>IQ: 75
Age: 6-10
N: 1,222
Test: CPM
Ref: Costenbader, V. and Ngari, S. M. (2000). A Kenya standardisation of the Coloured Progressive Matrices. School Psychology International, 22, 258-268.</p>

<p>IQ: 69
Age: 12-15
N: 85
Test: CPM-MH
Ref: Sternberg, R. J., Nokes, C., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Bundy, D. A., and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The relationship between academic and practical intelligence: A case study in Kenya. Intelligence, 29, 401-418.</p>

<p>IQ: 76
Age: 7
N: 118
Test: CPM
Ref: Daley, Y. C., Whaley, S. E., Sigman, M. D., Espinosa, M. P., and Neuman, C. (2003). IQ on the rise: the Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children. Psychological Science, 14, 215-219.</p>

<p>IQ: 89
Age: 7
N: 537
Test: CPM
Ref: Daley, Y. C., Whaley, S. E., Sigman, M. D., Espinosa, M. P., and Neuman, C. (2003). IQ on the rise: the Flynn effect in rural Kenyan children. Psychological Science, 14, 215-219.</p>

<p>IQ: 63
Age: 6
N: 184
Test: KABC
Ref: Holding, P. A., Taylor, H. G., Kazungu, S. D., and Mkala, T. (2004). Assessing cognitive outcomes in a rural African population: development of a neuropsychological battery in Kilifi district. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 246-260.</p>

<p>Tanzania
IQ: 72
Studies: 3</p>

<p>IQ: 78
Age: 13-17
N: 2,959
Test: SPM
Ref: Klingelhofer, E. L. (1967). Performance of Tanzanian secondary school pupils on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test. Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 205-215.</p>

<p>IQ: 65
Age: Adults
N: 179
Test: CPM
Ref: Boissiere, M., Knight, J. B., and Sabot, R. H. (1985). Earnings, schooling, ability,and cognitive skills. American Economic Review, 75,1016-1030.</p>

<p>IQ: 72
Age: 11-13
N: 458
Test: WCST
Ref: Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ngorosho, D., Tantufuye, E., Mbise, A., Nokes, C., Jukes, M., and Bundy, D. A. (2002). Assessing intellectual potential in rural Tanzanian school children. Intelligence, 30, 141-162.</p>

<p>Uganda
IQ: 73
Age: 11
N: 2,019
Test: RPM
Ref: Heyneman, S. P. and Jamison, D. T. (1980). Student learning in Uganda. Comparative Education Review, 24, 207-220.</p>

<p>Ethiopia
IQ: 64
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 65
Age: 15
N: 250
Test: SPM
Ref: Lynn, R. (1994). The intelligence of Ethiopian immigrant and Israeli adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 55-56.</p>

<p>IQ: 63
Age: 14-16
N: -
Test: SPM
Ref: Kazulin, A. (1998). Profiles of immigrant students’ cognitive performance on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1311-1314.</p>

<p>Djibouti
Eritrea
Somalia</p>

<p>SOUTHERN AFRICA</p>

<p>Botswana
IQ: 76
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 77 (366)
Age: 15
N: 5,150
Test: TIMSS 2003
Ref: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.) (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.</p>

<p>IQ: 75 (330)
Age: 15
N: 4,768
Test: IEA-R 1991
Ref: Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.</p>

<p>TIMSS sum: 396
TIMSS+PIRLS sum: 398
Sum: 391</p>

<p>Mozambique
IQ: 62
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: 20
N: 149
Test: CPM
Ref: Kendall, I. M. (1976). The predictive validity of a possible alternative to the Classification Test Battery. Psychologia Africana, 16, 131-146.</p>

<p>IQ: 60
ISAMS: 24 (60)</p>

<p>South Africa (blacks)
IQ: 67
Studies: 13</p>

<p>IQ: 63
Age: 9
N: 350
Test: SPM
Ref: Lynn, R. and Holmshaw, M. (1990). Black-white differences in reaction times and intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 299-308.</p>

<p>IQ: 67
Age: 8-10
N: 806
Test: CPM
Ref: Jinabhai, C. C., Taylor, M., Rangongo, N. J., Mkhize, S., Anderson, S., Pillay, B. J., and Sullivan, K. R. (2004). Investigating the mental abilities of rural primary school children in South Africa. Ethnicity and Health, 9, 17-36.</p>

<p>IQ: 67
Age: 14-17
N: 152
Test: WISC-R
Ref: Skuy, M., Schutte, E., Fridjhon, P., and O’Carroll, S. (2001). Suitability of published neuropsychological test norms for urban African secondary school students in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1413-1425.</p>

<p>IQ: 65
Age: 10-12
N: 293
Test: AAB
Ref: Fick, M. L. (1929). Intelligence test results of poor white, native (Zulu), colored, and Indian school children and the social and educational implications. South Africa Journal of Science, 26, 904-920.</p>

<p>IQ: 75
Age: 8-16
N: 1,008
Test: SPM
Ref: Notcutt, B. (1950). The measurement of Zulu intelligence. Journal of Social Research, 1, 195-206.</p>

<p>IQ: 69
Age: Adults
N: 153
Test: WAIS-R
Ref: Nell, V. (2000). Cross-Cultural Neuropsychological Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 703
Test: SPM
Ref: Notcutt, B. (1950). The measurement of Zulu intelligence. Journal of Social Research, 1, 195-206.</p>

<p>IQ: 71
Age: Adults
N: 140
Test: WISC-R
Ref: Avenant, T. J. (1988). The Establishment of an Individual Intelligence Scale for Adult South Africans. Report No. P-91. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.</p>

<p>IQ: 68
Age: 15-16
N: 1,093
Test: JAT
Ref: Lynn, R., and Owen, K. (1994). Spearman’s hypothesis and test score differences between whites, Indians and blacks in South Africa. Journal of General Psychology, 121, 27-36.</p>

<p>IQ: 63
Age: 16
N: 1,096
Test: SPM
Ref: Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of Raven’s Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 149-159.</p>

<p>IQ: 64 (259)
Age: 16
N: 8,146
Test: TIMSS 1999
Ref: Martin, M. O., Gregory, K. D., & Stemler, S. E. (Eds.) (2000). TIMSS Technical Report: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade (Boston, Intrenational study Center, Boston College).</p>

<p>IQ: 63 (254)
Age: 15
N: 8,952
Test: TIMSS 2003
Ref: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.) (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.</p>

<p>IQ: 69
TIMSS 1995: 270
TIMSS 1999: 259 (64)
TIMSS 2003: 254 (63)
TIMSS sum: 304
TIMSS+PIRLS sum: 328
Sum: 324</p>

<p>Swaziland
IQ: 64
ISAMS: 32 (64)</p>

<p>Zambia
IQ: 71
Studies: 2</p>

<p>IQ: 77
Age: 13
N: 759
Test: SPM
Ref: MacArthur, R. S., Irvine, S. H., and Brimble, A. R. (1964). The Northern Rhodesia Mental Ability Survey. Lusaka: Rhodes Livingstone Institute.</p>

<p>IQ: 64
Age: Adults
N: 152
Test: SPM
Ref: Pons, A. L. (1974). Administration of tests outside the cultures of their origin. 26th Congress of the South African Psychological Association.</p>

<p>Zimbabwe
IQ: 70
Studies: 3</p>

<p>IQ: 61
Age: 12-14
N: 204
Test: WISC-R
Ref: Zindi, F. (1994). Differences in psychometric performance. The Psychologist, 7, 549-552.</p>

<p>IQ: 70
Age: 12-14
N: 204
Test: SPM
Ref: Zindi, F. (1994). Differences in psychometric performance. The Psychologist, 7, 549-552.</p>

<p>IQ: 76 (372)
Age: 16
N: 2,749
Test: IEA-R 1991
Ref: Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.</p>

<p>Angola
Lesotho
Malawi
Namibia</p>

162

<p>Do you not see the major flaw with Watson’s study/whatever he calls it? Let me give you an example. Obviously there are cultural differences between what I will call the West (America and Europe) and Africa. A certain population in Africa lives self-sufficient. In other words, they grow their own food, make their own shelter and live happily. They don’t really go to college. Now, there are people who do that in the West as well. But the percentage of people who do is certainly higher in Africa which tends to not have as developed an economy and infastructure as Western nations do. </p>

<p>So back to the topic. This guy Watson goes over and gives people in the West and Africa the same test. THE SAME TEST. I wonder where this test was developed and what it measures. Wait, hold on, my crystal ball is telling me this test was developed in the West. I AM SHOCKED! So he gives this test to Africans. Of course they score lower, what did you expect? A higher percentage in Africa has been living completly self sufficient. When given a modern, Western IQ test, they didn’t perform as well as Westerners. I bet if this IQ test tested something like say, self-sustainability (like how to build your own home, grow your own food, and make your own clothes), Westerners would do worse, on average, than Africans. Just because Africans did poorly on a Western IQ test DOES NOT mean they are dumber. A higher percentage of the people in Africa would not have been exposed to the concepts this IQ test tests. Likewise, just because the West, on average, would do poorer on a test on self-sustainability vs. Africa doesn’t mean that the West is dumb. They just haven’t been expsed to the concepts tested on that type of a test. Intelligence isnt being able to solve 2x^4+9x^3+2=7x^(2*4), what is x? Or being able to solve Internet is to communication as government is to ______? You can’t say that just because a person can’t solve that, he/she is dumb. Thats wrong. I know I can’t build my own home. Hell, I’d freeze to death in winter by the time I had two pieces of plywood properly attached. But that doesn’t make me dumb. See where I am going here?
Disclaimer: I only read half way through your thing before I got too disgusted to continue.</p>

<p>Anyways, just because a group of people can’t peform as well on a test versus another group does not make them dumber. Extending the results of a flawed IQ test and saying that an entire race/ethnic group is, on average, dumber than an other, is racist and bigoted. Seriously, this is the exact argument the Confedercy used to defend slavery. “The African Americans need help from us and need to continue being our slaves because they are naturally dumb.” That, is essentially, the Confederacy’s positive good argument. Wrong then, wrong now. And the entire scientific community has rebuked this moron. Seriously, this isn’t a perponderance of evidence. It’s a racist trying to use a flawed logic to support his bigoted views.</p>

<p>Also, I used a lot of generalities in this post, they meant no offense to anyone what so ever. My entire point is this: Intelligence and racial/ethnicity have no correlation. Saying that one race is smarter than another is racist and wrong.</p>

<p>All of the other things you point out such as the disparity in test scores of children in the US, can be due to socioeconomic differences. As unfortunate as it is, certain races earn, on average, less than others. This then could cause a overall difference in average test scores. It doesn’t mean certain races are dumber than others.</p>

163

<p>

</p>

<p>In that case, this whole thread is pretty much irrelevant, because aside from the few articles that have been posted everything we’ve been saying has been from personal experience.</p>

164

<p>You don’t seem to have read the post, so let’s look at one section of it that deals with this “intelligence does not exist nonsense”. Before we start, I wish to note that IQ tests are not culturally biased. The following statement:</p>

<p>

Just shows that you have no idea what a IQ is.</p>

<p>This section of his blog is directly relevant to your rather bad arguments.</p>

<pre><code>roups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments … proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate…)
</code></pre>

<p>Steven Pinker - The Edge Annual Question - 2006. “What is your dangerous idea?”</p>

<p>Of course pointing to the testing data alone is hardly sufficient to quell these latter-day inquisitors. There is, sadly, an infinite regress of obscurantist objections designed to intellectually moot these issues entirely. These objections are not scientific, and are at odds with the data, logic, and, more often, both.</p>

<p>Systematic media misrepresentations of psychometric science have been occurring for going on 40 years.</p>

<p>In 1988 Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman published The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy. Along with data from their 1987 study of over 1000 scholars in fields familiar with IQ testing, such as psychology, sociology, and behavioral genetics, Rothman and Snyderman took a quantitative look at media coverage of IQ and demonstrated how this media coverage habitually diverged with mainstream scholarly opinion.</p>

<p>This is particularly egregious during times of IQ controversy.</p>

<p>Media reports and editorials were quick to attack Watson on the premise that any statement about intelligence measures is scientifically indefensible, because science cannot study something so immeasurable and indefinable as intelligence. Cornelia Dean reporting for the New York Times did just this:</p>

<pre><code>[T]here is wide disagreement about what intelligence consists of and how - or even if - it can be measured in the abstract.
</code></pre>

<p>Laura Blue in Time Magazine asserted:</p>

<pre><code>… science has no agreed-upon definition of “intelligence” either - let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we’re born.
</code></pre>

<p>Similarly, Steven Rose in the New Statesmen:</p>

<pre><code>… the question of what constitutes ‘intelligence’ is itself problematic - the word has much broader and diverse meanings than what can be encompassed in IQ tests.
</code></pre>

<p>Robert Sternberg in the Chicago Tribune:</p>

<pre><code>Sternberg, a critic of traditional intelligence testing, believes intelligence can mean something different for different cultures. In parts of Africa, a good gauge of intelligence might be how well someone avoids infection with malaria – a test of cleverness that most Americans likely would flunk.

In the same way, for many Africans who take Western IQ tests, “our problems aren’t relevant to them,” Sternberg said."
</code></pre>

<p>First of all, an intelligence test cannot and is not designed to tell you the reasons people score differently. So the fact that the test by itself has nothing to say about genetics is not a failure of the test. Second, the assertion of widespread chaos within science over intelligence is false. The statement that there are a number of theoretical differences about the concept of intelligence is only trivially true. In the practical context of research, provisional understanding, and ‘normal science’ this is rhetorically equivalent to underlining evolution as “only a theory” in media reports. Intelligence as a working scientific research concept and tool is both widespread (as a search for terms such as ‘IQ’, ‘Intelligence’ or ‘cognitive ability’ on PubMed, Google Scholar, or similar publication databases will show), and broadly consistent in approaches and shared theory, methods, premises, and data. The American Psychological Association’s 11 member ‘taskforce’, assembled for a consensus statement on intelligence research, reported:</p>

<pre><code>… [M]uch of our discussion is devoted to the dominant psychometric approach, which has not only inspired the most research and attracted the most attention (up to this time) but is by far the most widely used in practical settings.
</code></pre>

<p>Third, “All kinds of cultural biases” certainly have not been reported in IQ tests. The tests are not “biased” in the sense that psychometricians use this term. Again the APA taskforce showed consensus on this issue:</p>

<pre><code>… the relevant question is whether the tests have a “predictive bias” against Blacks, Such a bias would exist if African-American performance on the criterion variables (school achievement, college GPA, etc.) were systematically higher than the same subjects’ test scores would predict. This is not the case. The actual regression lines (which show the mean criterion performance for individuals who got various scores on the predictor) for Blacks do not lie above those for Whites; there is even a slight tendency in the other direction (Jensen, 1980; Reynolds &:Brown, 1984). Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans.
</code></pre>

<p>Similarly Robert Sternberg argues that the tests are biased because they allegedly don’t measure the sorts of abilities that are necessary for Africans to succeed in their unique environmental niche. This statement is not only a patronizing and idyllic caricature of African needs, but is also empirically false. This idea was addressed by psychologist Earl Hunt in his peer commentary on Rindermann:</p>

<pre><code>There are two reasons that national-level differences in intelligence have been disregarded. One is that it can be argued that intelligence, as evaluated by these tests, is a Western concept, and that the abilities evaluated by the tests may not be the ones valued by non-western societies. This is a spurious argument for two reasons. First, the economic indicators we are trying to relate to intelligence are also Western concepts. As the commentator Thomas Friedman has said, the world is flat. We are not asking whether or not various national populations have the ability to compete in their own societies, we are asking about their ability to compete in the Western-defined international marketplace. The tests are appropriately designed to address this question. (p 727)
</code></pre>

<p>In fact, economists Eric A. Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann report that the association between economic outcomes and measured intelligence appear to be even higher within developing African countries than within Western countries. (pp 13-15) Similarly, at the national level, psychologists Earl Hunt and Werner Wittmann found that the relationship between GDP and national average IQ was stronger for the mostly African developing countries than it was among the developed industrial countries. (0.70 vs 0.58)</p>

<p>In their literature review, Kendall, Verster, and Von Mollendorf found that correlations between employee performance and educational outcomes and cognitive ability did not differ for blacks and whites in Southern Africa. In other words, at school or on the job, an African white with an IQ score of 70 will perform no different than an African black with the same score. Similarly an African black with an IQ of 115 performs the same as an African white with the same score.</p>

<p>So “our problems” certainly are relevant to Africans, and certainly are “their” problems. Unless issues such as child mortality, health, sanitation, rule of law, political stability, material comfort, global influence, and life expectancy are somehow not relevant to Africans.</p>

<p>Appearances to the contrary, the mendacious Robert Sternberg is, in fact, implicitly agreeing with Watson, while nevertheless shouting him down in the media. Sternberg does not deny that psychometric general intelligence is as low as reported in Africa, nor does he deny that this psychometric intelligence has the academic and economic consequences that the “racist… know-nothing” Watson implied it did. In fact, Sternberg himself has conducted intelligence studies in East Africa, and found the same characteristically 70ish IQ scores, as well as correlations between IQ and academic achievement in this region similar to the correlations reported in developed countries. Thus Sternberg’s reply to Watson in The New Scientist:</p>

<pre><code>The tests as they stand show some differences between various groups of children. The size of the differences and what groups do best in the tests depend on what is tested. For example, with various collaborators I have found that analytical tests of the kind traditionally used to measure so-called general abilities tend to favour Americans of European and Asian origin, while tests of creative and practical thinking show quite different patterns. On a test of oral storytelling, for example, Native Americans outperform other groups.
</code></pre>

<p>

</p>

165

<p>BTW, James Watson is not a “moron”. He was one of the most important biologists of the past century.</p>

166

<p>

Why do poor whites score higher than rich blacks?</p>

167

<p>Maybe because of the environment in which they are raised? They might live in cities vs. poor whites who live in rural areas with better schools. Nonetheless, doing poorly on the SAT/IQ tests does not make you less intelligent than someone who does better on SAT/IQ tests. There are too many factors to say they score lower because of ______. In scientific experiments, you need to have only one variable. With something like this, there are a million variables you can’t control for.</p>

<p>And I’m going to stop responding to you now. Your argument is clearly racist and bigoted. Take a step back and think about what you are saying. Or maybe consider printing this out and going to a counselor if you want.</p>

<p>EDIT: Watson might have done many important things in the past. But he is trying to prove a false point by using false logic as the scientific community has stated. And his views clearly show he is racist/bigoted.</p>

168

<p>

LOL are you serious? Rich city schools are FAR superior to poor white ones. This argument is ridiculous.</p>

<p>

Doing worse on an IQ test does.</p>

<p>

Give me a concrete example of a variable which invalidates IQ tests</p>

<p>

What makes it racist? Objective reality is not racist. People like you are the reason Watson was attacked- they don’t want to accept uncomfortable data. Too bad.</p>

<p>

The scientific community has not said it is false- many scientists who deal with pyschometrics hold to this position, and the data from the article comes from scientists.</p>

169

<p>James Watson is a molecular biologist. Why are you accepting his opinion on the intelligence of Africans as expert?</p>

170

<p>^^^ I am not basing my opinion on his, however, he was familiar with the data on this subject so one can call him an expert without being incorrect IMO.</p>

171

<p>Let’s just look at the small picture. When you can prove that memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules makes a person more intelligient please call me up.</p>

<p>Good luck finding a counter to that.</p>

172

<p>When you can prove that all it takes to do well on the SAT is memorize vocabulary and grammar rules please call me up.</p>

173

<p>The vocab alone is equal to 100-150 points. All the memorized writing info is around 250 points, so i’m pretty sure that would make a lot of error if you aske me.</p>

<p>But make 300 points isn’t a big deal. 2000 = 2300 obviously…</p>

174

<p>Yes, the difference between getting every vocab question correct and getting every vocab question incorrect may be that high, but people generally don’t make that kind of jump. Usually, good students will go from a strong vocabulary to an excellent one, average students will go from an average vocabulary to a decent one, and poor students will go from a poor vocabulary to a mediocre one. It’d take an insane amount of time to go from knowing none of the vocab to knowing every word. Same goes for writing.</p>

<p>And the fact that you’re looking at 300 points improvement max from an immense amount of studying just goes to show that it takes a lot more than hours and hours of prep to do well. In the overall scheme of things, 300 points isn’t a huge deal – much greater improvements can be made on other kinds of tests in much less time.</p>

175

<p>@killbilly:
Ever heard of a book called ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ by Diamond? You should read it I think.
The concept is basically that Europeans, those on the continent and near mesopotamia, were at a geographical advantage from even before the Neolithic Era due to the type of food available and domesticable animals. (think, as far as nutrition goes (which science shows has a lot to do with ‘brain power’, how much more a diet of grains like wheat and domesticable cattle would help over the span of thousands of years when compared with being stuck with no staple grains and the elephant?)
It’s really complex and I’m not gonna get into it, but Diamond suggests that this is the main reason that Europeans seemed to leap ahead of other civilizations, it was geographical luck of the draw. (also, he mentions the layout of Europe, which is distributed more along the latitude than the longitude. What do Africa, North America, and south america all have in common? A longitudenly distributed continent. This means ideas, goods, civilizations had a much harder time moving because of the vastly different climates.)</p>

<p>I don’t really know what your argument is besides "minorities are ‘stupid’ so HA!', which I believe is not even the topic of this thread and not at all relevant.</p>

176

<p>

I have </p>

<p>

Why do races in the United States not display the same scores on tests? Nutrition is no longer a factor.</p>

<p>

And his conclusion needs much much more data before it is declared to be correct.</p>

<p><a href=“also,%20he%20mentions%20the%20layout%20of%20Europe,%20which%20is%20distributed%20more%20along%20the%20latitude%20than%20the%20longitude.%20What%20do%20Africa,%20North%20America,%20and%20south%20america%20all%20have%20in%20common?%20A%20longitudenly%20distributed%20continent.%20This%20means%20ideas,%20goods,%20civilizations%20had%20a%20much%20harder%20time%20moving%20because%20of%20the%20vastly%20different%20climates.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
While this may be correct, it has nothing to do with intellectual aptitude tests.</p>

<p>

I was responding to another poster who made claim about intelligence. Someone attacked my post and I backed it up.</p>

177

<p>killbilly:

  1. ‘nutrition is no longer a factor’. This is something that has built up over thousands of years, and a couple hundred (oh wait…that was slavery…not exactly the best diet then…so maybe only 150 tops) in the US isn’t goint to change that. His theory isn’t perfect, obviously, but neither is what you are advocating (and please don’t get into a rant about Watson, or post more links, ik ik ik, but these tests aren’t perfect and neither are the theories they try to test)
  2. The movement of ideas and people has A LOT to do with what you might call ‘intelligence’. Think about the Maya, Aztecs, many other advance civilization that developed writing, as far as the evidence shows, BEFORE Europeans, but none of them could share that knowledge from one civilization to the other. So when they died out, all of it was effectively gone. Europe on the other hand has a climate and terrain which makes it easy to be like ‘oh, I discovered you can grow this grain/ride this horse, let’s go move West’ and then they encounter other villages and thus ‘knowledge’ is spread. It is actually very very important. </p>

<p>I think you dismiss this theory because it challenges, idk, maybe your assumption that whites are ‘smarter’ because they are just naturally better than everyone else and that other races could never be equal to them if the circumstances from the beginning were different? You seem very dismissive of something that would kind of help explain what you are talking about.</p>

178

<p>There is no evidence of an inherent, genetically determined difference in intelligence among the races. All genetic differences discovered so far have been superficial. Yet on average blacks score lower than whites.</p>

<p>Simple answer: more blacks are in poverty, percentage-wise. </p>

<p>I’m not a racist because I accept the reality.</p>

179

<p>

How are they imperfect? If you are going to make such claim…support it with actual data.</p>

<p>And my point is that it doesn’t make sense that nutrition still plays a factor unless it somehow altered the course of the evolution of these groups, in which case there is definitely a genetic gap in intelligence.</p>

<p>

How did it impact the basic mental reasoning ability of the average member of each group?</p>

<p>

Well, I do not doubt for a minute that a different beginning could have changed things. After all, if the races had evolved differently then of course things would be different. I’m not dismissing his claims out of hand. Perhaps the things is talking about are correct, but he needs to do a lot more to prove his claim.</p>

<p>Calling me a racist is unfair and unwarranted.</p>

180

<p>

Link?</p>

<p>

Poor whites score higher than rich blacks. Please try again.</p>