>with a rejection rate for Blacks on the preinduction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared with 3% for Whites.
This is the key point that undermines the whole article. And the rejection rate disparity doesn't even count people who self-rejected due to expected failure.
I mean cmon, "no disparity in the IQs of the children of black and white olympiad finalists" doesn't show anything at all.
First, we are not comparing black with white. we are comparing half-whites with whites. An of the half-whites, 30% were probably white too. So we are comparing 1/3 non-whites with whites. That's not a projected gap of 15 points but just 5-6 points.
There are also several layers of selection that went on:
A. black servicemen candidates that didn't meet a certain IQ threshold were taken out of the pool (this we know for certain)
B. The provider quality of potential partner had to meet a certain level, maybe higher with a black partner? So maybe a white private maybe an OK partner, but if he's black, a sergeant or even a lieutenant is better?
C. Interracial kids had a higher probability to be relegated to orphanage or secondary adoption, and then may not hve appeared in this study? Here it is probable that smart kids had a higher maternal retention rate.
Selection processes are known to play a role: in the recent ABCD study of Jordan Lasker and Emil Kierkegaard, full blooded Subsaharan descent kids whose parents were apparently recent African immigrants had a significantly better IQ than children/adolescents with 20% europid white admixture who represented the indigineous African-Americans.
In the UK, children of recent African immigrants scores were almost on par with that of average British whites. And so on...
So if you have a normally distributed set and remove the bottom 30% you get a increase in the average of .5sigma half a standard deviation. So basically you'd expect those soldiers to have an IQ of 93, not 85. Which would explain most of the gap disappearing. But more than that since some were north african, and we assume some rejection of the bottom in that group, we'd expect something even higher say 95. Seems like a small N very selected study. That's not a problem, but I'm not surprised we've never seen a replication.
That on it's own wouldn't close the gaps though, assuming the AGCT standard was the same for both groups. The 30% to 3% rejection ratio implies an initial IQ gap of 20 points between groups shrinking to 14 points after rejections. The hereditarian expectation would be about a gap of about 7 points in the next generation(regression to the mean could push that up a bit but being raised in similar environments might push the gap down a bit).
However, there's still two steps of selection after that: who knocks up whom, and who marries/is allowed to marry whom. And if different standards are applied to different groups, it's possible for gaps to disappear or even reverse.
Richard, you can't have a post that says "Shut up about race and IQ" and then continually post race and IQ posts. You're one of the least morally/logically consistent people i've ever seen
The "Shut up" post is about people who fixate on IQ gaps and make HBD central to both their thinking about political issues and their engagement with others on political issues. Discussing--in a balanced way--a study that bears upon race/IQ is not the same as that.
The point was that a Right that is loud and proud about their views on racial IQ gaps is a Right that is less likely to prevail politically. The point was not that discussing race/IQ is completely verboten--that's the left-wing view.
Very fascinating story and study, despite the fact I find the larger topic to be pretty boring.
The issue, as I see it, isn't that we shouldn't expect to see genetic differences in intelligence between groups with different genetic backgrounds/makeup. Of course that will be the case. The issue is the confidence people have in assuming one's genetic makeup simply be looking at them.
While it's kind of obnoxious to point out, it is a fact that 'race' (in the simplistic sense that humans use it, which is based almost entirely on how one looks) is not an external DNA test., but indeed a construct. In America, for example, we had the one-drop rule and even had a term for an individual who had one black great-grandparent. Descendants of mix-race people from over 200 years ago are all over our country now.
The fact that one's appearance only works as a proxy for their true genetic make-up, to me, makes the entire conversation seem farcical at times. It's easy to say that even though there is nothing about the knowledge that 'genetics differences in IQ between different races' that is even the least bit scary to me.
>with a rejection rate for Blacks on the preinduction Army General Classification Test of about 30%, compared with 3% for Whites.
This is the key point that undermines the whole article. And the rejection rate disparity doesn't even count people who self-rejected due to expected failure.
I mean cmon, "no disparity in the IQs of the children of black and white olympiad finalists" doesn't show anything at all.
First, we are not comparing black with white. we are comparing half-whites with whites. An of the half-whites, 30% were probably white too. So we are comparing 1/3 non-whites with whites. That's not a projected gap of 15 points but just 5-6 points.
There are also several layers of selection that went on:
A. black servicemen candidates that didn't meet a certain IQ threshold were taken out of the pool (this we know for certain)
B. The provider quality of potential partner had to meet a certain level, maybe higher with a black partner? So maybe a white private maybe an OK partner, but if he's black, a sergeant or even a lieutenant is better?
C. Interracial kids had a higher probability to be relegated to orphanage or secondary adoption, and then may not hve appeared in this study? Here it is probable that smart kids had a higher maternal retention rate.
Selection processes are known to play a role: in the recent ABCD study of Jordan Lasker and Emil Kierkegaard, full blooded Subsaharan descent kids whose parents were apparently recent African immigrants had a significantly better IQ than children/adolescents with 20% europid white admixture who represented the indigineous African-Americans.
In the UK, children of recent African immigrants scores were almost on par with that of average British whites. And so on...
So if you have a normally distributed set and remove the bottom 30% you get a increase in the average of .5sigma half a standard deviation. So basically you'd expect those soldiers to have an IQ of 93, not 85. Which would explain most of the gap disappearing. But more than that since some were north african, and we assume some rejection of the bottom in that group, we'd expect something even higher say 95. Seems like a small N very selected study. That's not a problem, but I'm not surprised we've never seen a replication.
That on it's own wouldn't close the gaps though, assuming the AGCT standard was the same for both groups. The 30% to 3% rejection ratio implies an initial IQ gap of 20 points between groups shrinking to 14 points after rejections. The hereditarian expectation would be about a gap of about 7 points in the next generation(regression to the mean could push that up a bit but being raised in similar environments might push the gap down a bit).
However, there's still two steps of selection after that: who knocks up whom, and who marries/is allowed to marry whom. And if different standards are applied to different groups, it's possible for gaps to disappear or even reverse.
Richard, you can't have a post that says "Shut up about race and IQ" and then continually post race and IQ posts. You're one of the least morally/logically consistent people i've ever seen
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/shut-up-about-race-and-iq
The "Shut up" post is about people who fixate on IQ gaps and make HBD central to both their thinking about political issues and their engagement with others on political issues. Discussing--in a balanced way--a study that bears upon race/IQ is not the same as that.
The point was that a Right that is loud and proud about their views on racial IQ gaps is a Right that is less likely to prevail politically. The point was not that discussing race/IQ is completely verboten--that's the left-wing view.
Richard, you are a confusing guy. Didn't you tell us to shut up about race and IQ.
Very fascinating story and study, despite the fact I find the larger topic to be pretty boring.
The issue, as I see it, isn't that we shouldn't expect to see genetic differences in intelligence between groups with different genetic backgrounds/makeup. Of course that will be the case. The issue is the confidence people have in assuming one's genetic makeup simply be looking at them.
While it's kind of obnoxious to point out, it is a fact that 'race' (in the simplistic sense that humans use it, which is based almost entirely on how one looks) is not an external DNA test., but indeed a construct. In America, for example, we had the one-drop rule and even had a term for an individual who had one black great-grandparent. Descendants of mix-race people from over 200 years ago are all over our country now.
The fact that one's appearance only works as a proxy for their true genetic make-up, to me, makes the entire conversation seem farcical at times. It's easy to say that even though there is nothing about the knowledge that 'genetics differences in IQ between different races' that is even the least bit scary to me.