This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.68.206.90 (talk) at 04:31, 8 October 2006 (→Brain Size Fallacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:31, 8 October 2006 by 70.68.206.90 (talk) (→Brain Size Fallacy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Contrary to unpopular belief
- In more than a dozen studies from the 1960s and 1970s analyzed by Flynn (1991), the mean IQs of Japanese- and Chinese American children were always around 97 or 98; none was over 100. These studies did not include other Asian groups such as the Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Filipinos; who tend to achieve less academically and perform poorly on conventional psychometric tests (See Flynn, 1991).
-Stevenson et al (1985), comparing the intelligence-test performance of children in Japan, Taiwan and the United States, found no substantive differences at all. Given the general problems of cross-cultural comparison, there is no reason to expect precision or stability in such estimates.
- The measured amount of genetic variation in the entire human population is extremely small; genetically we are very similar. Indeed, 93% of all genetic variability occurs within Africa; the human groups with the greatest difference between them occur in Africa. Research has also found that the differences between chimpanzees and humans exceed 69%, whereas the widest range between any two groups of humans is less than 3%. All of this calls the concept of biological races into serious question.
Human populations have never been separated long enough for anything but the most superficial traits to have developed between them; regional human psychical traits over lap and graduate into one another. Traits like height and body shape offer much more genetic information than anything we use to designate the racial groups in North America and elsewhere. Furthermore, what is considered black in America could be considered white in Africa; that is, social ideas involving race differ from population to population. (See, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza, 1994 & 2000; Davis, 1991; Allen & Adams, 1992. Cohen, 2002).
-- Arguments against IQ --
Cole, Gay, Glick and Sharp (1971:233) made the following insightful observation: Cultural differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particular cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in one cultural group, and its absence in another. A similar position is held by Berry (1974).
Sarason and Doris (1979) view intelligence as a cultural invention that does not hold true across cultures.
(Serpell, 1974; Super, 1983; Wober, 1974) Even within a given society, different cognitive characteristics are emphasized from one situation to another and from one subculture to another. These differences extend not just to conceptions of intelligence but to what is considered adaptive or appropriate in a broader sense.
Views of intelligence vary from culture to culture; and the majority of these views do not reflect Western ideas (See, Berry & Bennett, 1992; Greenfield, 1997; Okagaki & Sternberg, 1991; Serpell, 1993; Yang & Sternberg, 1997)
We need to reduce the bias toward measuring intelligence through logical/mathematical and linguistic abilities and move toward looking more directly at a specific intelligence in operation (Gardner, 1993).
Howard Gardner is vocal about his disdain for a singularly psychometric approach to measuring intelligence based on paper and pencil tests. Secondly, he responds to the belief that an intelligence is the same as a domain or a discipline. Gardner reiterates his definition of an intelligence and distinguishes it from a domain which he describes as a culturally relevant, organized set of activities characterized by a symbol system and a set of operations (See Gardner; Phi Delta Kappan, 1995).
Often intelligence tests measure skills that children are expected to acquire a few years before the taking the test (Sternberg, Presidential addresses; Culture and Intelligence, 2004).
Vernon (1971) points out the axes of a factor analysis do not necessarily reveal a latent structure of the mind but rather represent a convenient way of characterizing the organization of metal abilites. Vernon believed that there is no one 'right' orientation of axes. Indeed, mathematically an infinite number of orientations of axes can be fit to any solution in an explanatory factor analysis (See Sternberg, 2004).
The two most widely used standardized tests of intelligence are the Wechsler scales and the Stanford-Binet. Both instruments are psychometrically sound, but Gardner believes that these tests measure only linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, with a narrow focus within content in those domains. According to Gardner, the current psychometric approach for measuring intelligence is not sufficient (Gardner, 1993).
Robert Sternberg and his colleagues ask the experts to define intelligence according to their beliefs. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions produced in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and the ability to learn, but these constructs were not well specified. According to Sternberg, very few tests measure adaptation to environment and ability to learn; nor do any tests except dynamic tests involving learning at the time of the test measure ability to learn. He further states, traditional tests focus much more on measuring past learning which can be the result of many factors, including motivation and available opportunities to learn (Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd, American Psychologist, 2005). - IQ test items are largely measures of achievement at various levels of competency (Sternberg, 1998, 1999, 2003). Items requiring knowledge of the fundamentals of vocabulary, information, comprehension, and arithmetic problem solving (Cattell, 1971;Horn, 1994).
IQ scores do change over time. The average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals change as much as 18 points (Jones & Bayley, 1941).
Individuals do not necessarily exhibit their "intelligence" in its raw state. Rather, they prepare to use their intelligence by passing through a developmental process. Thus, people who want to be mathematicians or physicists, spend years studying and honing their logical/mathematical abilities in a distinctive and socially relevant way (Gardner, 1999).⼢r>
In addition to learned reasoning abilities, IQ measures little more than a person's ability to take an IQ test, as scores increase dramatically as a person is trained or familiarized with the tests (See Kamin, 1974).
"Intelligence is a biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture (Gardner, 1999a), "
Research has shown that IQ type tests account for about 10% of the variation in how successful people are in various aspects of their adult lives. 10% isn't much and, maybe it's a coincidence, but when I ask people what it takes to be successful on the job or in a personal relationship and what it takes to be successful on one of these tests, or in an introductory classroom, the overlap is probably about 10% (Robert Sternberg, interview with Frontline).
Intelligence is not a characteristic of people, but rather a potential for intelligence performance that is embedded in specific situations (Barab & Plucker, 2002).
Gardner (1993) emphasizes two additional points about assessment that are critical. The first is that the assessment of intelligence should encompass multiple measures. Relying on a single IQ score from a WISC-III (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) without substantiating the findings through other data sources does the individual examinee a disservice and produces insufficient information for those who provide interventions.
IQ tests are convenient partial operationalizations of the construct of intelligence, and nothing more. They do not provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that tape measures provide of height (See Sternberg et al, 2005).
At this point in history, the study of intelligence has moved well beyond the realm of psychometrics.
-- African American Test Scores --
IQ differences in the U.S are not as drastic as some have you believe. Many researchers put the difference between 7-10 points or less (Richard Nisbett, 2005; Vincent, 1991; Thorndike et al, 1986; Leon J. Kamin, 1995, Dickenson & Flynn, 2002). As well, this conclusion is only reached after lumping the entire black population together as a single body. That is, blacks from different regions in the U.S. differ markedly in culture and achievement.
Brain Size Fallacy
- The main correlation with brain size in a species as homogeneous as modern humans is height/size, because of this the average black/white brain is certainly much larger than then the average Asian brain (not proportionally, but in absolute terms!).
- The methods Rushton (Lynn's source for data) uses to obtain brains are far from contemporary standards for neuroscience. A report of five black Civil War soldiers from 1865 is given the same weight as a 1934 study of over 300 dead Kenyans. - That is a 69 year difference, and the individuals are from different continents; this not to mention the shear age of the brains in question.
- Rushton (1990a, 1990c, 1991) also misrepresents the evidence for racial differences in brain/body size ratio. For example, Herskovits's (1930) data suggest that there is no consistent Black/ White difference with respect to stature or crania.
- There is not one properly controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature (Douglas Wahlsten, Genetics of Brain Development and Behavior, at the University of Alberta) .
- The explanatory power of Rushton's model is effectively zero. (Douglas Wahlsten, University of Alberta)
- Weizmann et al. (1990) have documented numerous instances in which Rushton completely misrepresents work that he cites without giving the reader any sense of the problems recognized even by the original investigators or the cautions and reservations they express.
- Rushton and Bogaert cite as their main reference for data on genital size for all three races the work of an anonymous "French Army Surgeon."
Rushton and Bogaert refer to the work by the simple citation, Untrodden Fields of Anthropology (2 vols.). Weizmann et al. checked the original source and found that the work, published in Paris in 1896, consisted largely of anecdotal, prurient descriptions of unusual (to the European) sexual practices, a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information, containing so many contradictory claims that it is likely it was compiled by more than one author. No methods of measuring genitalia are ever described, nor is there any recognition of the problems involved in measuring an organ that is specialized for dramatic changes in size. Rushton and Bogaert claim that though Arabs have larger penises than Europeans, most of the Arabs were part black; however, Weiz-mann et al. find no mention of racial mixture in the Arab sample cited in the French source.
- Cranial size and number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compared favorably to those of Caucasoids. It is only by pooling their data with data for Negroids from countries notorious for famine and infant malnutrition that Rushton obtained an illusory support for his postulates.
- Rushton's (1988, Table 1) use of brain and cranial size as indicators of intelligence in humans is statistically absurd.
Ashkenazi Jews/other European Ethnicties and east asians updates
Hello. This is generic message I will be placing on several IQ-related atricles that have touched on Ashkenazim Jew IQ. Much is being written/compared/correlated on wikipedia regarding ashekenazim, much of which is incorrect given most modern research regarding it.
The modern interpreation of Ashkenazim IQ is that Jews have slightly higher verbal and mathematical IQ than the average white population and the same or lower IQ in perceptual and spatial. The below letter, compiled with data and written by Richard Lynn, shows that the IQ of diasporic A. Jews just in Verbal IQ is approximately 107. Not only is this substantially lower than many other studies in the past that relied on flawed non-representative samples and had small sample sizes, but it is merely the verbal IQ. One of the main trends of the A.Jew IQ has been very high verbal, with everything else being at least somewhat lower than that, meaning that this data suggests that the IQ of A.Jews may actually be significantly to slightly lower yet. In any event, most assertions being made on wikipedia are completely offbase and needs to be re-written with the understanding of these more recent studies and extrapolations of the experts in IQ, such as Lynn. I'm writing this in hopes people will take it open themselves to clean up wikis related to Ashkenazim since I really don't want to go to the trouble of running down every wiki and editing it myself.
Lynn has also now compiled a list of European nations/ethnicities and their respective IQs. The Dutch, Germans, and Poles all have approximately the same IQ according to the data as A.Jews, which throws even more monkey wrenchs into the wikis I've been reading, ones that say things like Jews success in field X could be linked to higher IQ. If this were the case, their would be way more German, Dutch, and Polish Nobel laureates. This is just an example. Basically, A.Jews, according to the accepted and recent interpretations, slightly exceed several European ethnicities and are essentially the same as many others. Further, now that Lynn has taken the time to break down IQs by ethnicities, all wikis generally related to IQ should include the data if they cite Ashkenazi IQ in the wiki. It smacks of some kind of racism to only single out A.Jews as an ethnicity and not others when we have the data on others. this seems to be a repeated bias I see on IQ-related wikis.
It should also be noted that both Flynn and Lynn have found that when correcting for the FLynn-effect, the East Asian IQ advantage drops to statistically negligble or close to. Again, this is the recent findings and wikis should reflect such. In any event, here is the cite/info-filled letter.
Dr. Richard Lynn The Intelligence of American Jews Sat Feb 14 01:24:26 2004
The Intelligence of American Jews Dr. Richard Lynn University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland http://www.rlynn.co.uk
Summary. This paper provides new data on the theory that Jews have a higher average level of verbal intelligence than non-Jewish whites. The theory is considered by examining the vocabulary scores of Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others obtained in the American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990-1996. Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence. Jews obtained a significantly higher mean vocabulary score than non-Jewish whites, equivalent to an IQ advantage of 7.5 IQ points. The results confirm previous reports that the verbal IQ of American Jews is higher than that of non-Jewish whites.
Introduction
It has often been asserted that Jews have a higher average level of intelligence than non-Jewish whites of European origin. Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) have written that "Whenever the subject of group differences comes up one of the questions sure to be asked is 'Are Jews really smarter than everyone else?' ” and their answer to this question is an affirmative. Eysenck (1995,p.159) asserted that "As far as Jews are concerned, there is no question that they score very highly on IQ tests". Levin (1997,p.132) has written that “in every society in which they have participated, Jews have eventually been recognised (and disliked for) their exceptional talent”. Seligman (1992, p.133) writes of "the extraordinarily high Jewish g levels”.
Despite these assertions, the purported high IQ of the Jews has never been systematically reviewed and is not even mentioned in recent textbooks on intelligence, such as those of Brody (1992) and Mackintosh (1998).
There have nevertheless been a number of studies of the intelligence of Jews in the United States. Among those who have discussed this question, there is a general consensus on two points. First, that Jews have a higher average IQ than gentile whites (this term is used for non-Jewish whites). Second, that Jews are stronger on verbal ability than on visualization and visual-spatial ability. Beyond this, there is a considerable range of conclusions. A review by MacDonald (1994,p.190) concludes that “taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a performance IQ in the average range”. Storfer (1990,p.314) writes that “Jewish people, considered as a group, tend to excel in some cognitive domains – for example, verbal and numerical ability – but not in others, as witness their unexceptional performance on certain types of spatial or perceptual problems. Storfer concludes that American Jews have an average IQ of about 112 on the Stanford-Binet, largely a test of verbal ability.
Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) reach a similar conclusion “A fair estimate seems to be that Jews in America and Britain have an overall IQ mean somewhere between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean, with the source of the difference concentrated in the verbal component” (1994, p.275). In the sample they analysed, Jews had an average IQ of 112.6 in relation to American whites on four verbal subtests (word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic and mathematics) of the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test). Their estimate of a Jewish advantage of between a half and a full standard deviation is equivalent to an IQ range of 7.5 to 15 IQ points. The estimates proposed by Storfer and Herrnstein and Murray are similar but much lower than that suggested by MacDonald (1994).
Despite the widespread consensus on the high Jewish verbal ability, not all studies have shown that Jews have a higher verbal IQ than gentiles. Furthermore, virtually all the existing studies are unsatisfactory because the samples have been unrepresentative, very small or for other reasons. An early study carried out in the mid-1920s of 702 Jewish and 1030 non-Jewish white 9-13 year olds tested with the Pintner-Cunningham test (a largely verbal test) by Hirsch (1926) found the Jewish children obtained a mean IQ only 1.5 IQ points higher than the gentiles. However, at this time a number of Jewish families spoke Yiddish as their first language and this would have handicapped the children to an unknown extent. A later study by Shuey (1942) of students entering Washington Square College in New York in 1935-7 tested with the American Council Psychological Examination, a test of verbal abilities (with subtests of completion, arithmetic, artificial language, analogies and opposites) found that 764 Jewish freshmen scored 1.2 IQ points below 236 non-Jewish whites. All the students were native born, possibly suggesting that the performance of the Jewish students was unlikely to have been depressed by unfamiliarity with the English language although some of these may still have been speaking Yiddish as their first language.
Furthermore, Jewish and gentile students at this college cannot be regarded as respresentative of their respective communities. A more recent study by Hennessy and Merrifield (1978) with an impressive sample size of 2,985 Jewish, gentile, black and Hispanic college bound high school seniors found a difference of less than 1 IQ point between Jews and gentiles on tests of verbal ability and reasoning but the sample may not have been representative of the populations.
Another problem with a number of the studies that have found that Jews have higher verbal IQs than gentiles is that several of them are based on very small sample sizes. For instance, Seligman (1990, p.130) writes that “Jewish verbal superiority appears unmatched in any other ethnic group. An often-quoted 1970 study performed by the Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research shows Jewish tenth-grade boys with an average verbal IQ equivalent of 112.8 (on the Stanford-Binet metric) about three quarters of a standard deviation above the average for non-Jewish white boys”. This is the Bachman (1970) study in which the number of Jewish boys was 65. In the Herrnstein and Murray (1994) data set in which Jews obtained a mean verbal IQ of 112.6, the sample size was 98 and was not drawn to be nationally representative. There is only one study of the intelligence of American Jews in the last half century which appears to be representative and had a reasonable sample size. This is Backman’s (1972) analysis of the data in Project Talent, a nationwide American survey of the abilities of 18 year olds carried out in 1960. The study had sample sizes of 1,236 Jews and 1,051 white gentiles (in addition to 488 blacks and 150 Orientals). IQs for six factors were calculated. The mean IQs of the Jews in relation to gentile white means of 100 and standard deviations of 15 were as follows: verbal knowledge (described as “a general factor, but primarily a measure of general information” and identifiable with Carroll’s (1993) gc or verbal comprehension factor - 107.8; English language – 99.5; mathematics – 109.7; visual reasoning (“a measure of reasoning with visual forms”) – 91.3; perceptual speed and accuracy – 102.2; memory (short term recall of verbal symbols) – 95.1. These results are consistent with the general consensus that Jews perform well on tests of verbal ability (although not of English language) and mathematics and less well on visual and spatial tests but the verbal IQ of 107.8 is towards the low end of the estimates of Jewish verbal ability suggested by Herrnstein and Murray of an IQ between 107.5 and 115. However, the differences in the IQs for the various abilities are so great as to raise doubts about the results.
The existing state of the research literature on the IQ of American Jews is therefore that some studies have shown that their verbal IQ is about the same as that of gentile whites while other studies have shown that it is considerably higher at 107.8 (Backman, 1972), 112.6 (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) and 112.8 (Bachman, 1970). However, the last of two of these studies have sample sizes of fewer than 100. There is room for more data on the IQ of American Jews, and it is to the presentation of this that we now turn.
Method
The American National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in Chicago carries out annual surveys on approximately 1,500 individuals in continental United States (ie. excluding Hawaii and Alaska). The samples are representative of the adult population of those aged 18 years and over except that they exclude those who cannot speak English and those resident in institutions such as prisons and hospitals. Full details of the sampling procedures are given by Davis and Smith (1996).
The NORC surveys collect a vast amount of information about the respondents' opinions on a variety of topics and also on their demographic characteristics such as their income, education, age, ethnic group, religion, etc.etc. The first items of information of particular interest to us are the respondents' religion and ethnic group. An analysis of these enables us to categorise the respondents as Jewish, non-Jewish white, black and other. The second item of interest is the respondents' score on a 10 word vocabulary test. Vocabulary is a good measure of both general intelligence and verbal intelligence. For instance, in the standardisation sample of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) the vocabulary subtest correlates .75 with the Full Scale IQ, more highly than any other subtest (Wechsler,1958) and the Full Scale IQ is widely regarded as a good measure of general intelligence or Spearman’s g (Jensen, 1998). We are therefore able to examine the vocabulary scores as a measure of the verbal and general intelligence of the four religious/ethnic groups.
As noted, the annual NORC surveys are carried out on approximately 1,500 individuals. A single year does not therefore provide many Jews. To rectify this problem we can take the results of a number of years and combine them. This gives rise to a further problem that the vocabulary test has not been administered in every annual survey. From 1990 onwards, the vocabulary test was given in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996. The data collected in these years are used to analyse the vocabulary scores of the four ethnic/racial groups.
Results
The results are shown in Table 1. Reading from left to right, the columns show the numbers in the four groups, the mean vocabulary scores, standard deviations and conventional IQs based on a gentile white mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Thus, expressed in this way, the Jewish group obtains a mean IQ of 107.5, significantly higher than the gentile whites (t=5.82); the blacks obtain a mean IQ of 89.7, significantly lower than that of gentile whites (t=17.89); the “others” obtain a mean IQ of 98.6, not significantly different from that of gentile whites.
Table 1. Vocabulary scores and verbal IQs of American Jews, non-Jewish whites, blacks and others.
Ethnic Group N Mean Sd IQ Jews 150 7.32 2.16 107.5 Gentiles 5300 6.28 2.03 100.0 Blacks 806 4.96 1.94 89.7 Others 219 6.09 2.37 98.6
Discussion
The results provide seven points of interest. First, they confirm the previous studies showing that American Jews have a higher average verbal intelligence level than non-Jewish whites. Second, the 7.5 IQ point Jewish advantage is rather less than that generally proposed and found in the studies reviewed in the introduction finding that Jews have verbal IQs in the range of 110-113 but is closely similar to the figure of 107.8 obtained in the Bachman study which is arguably the most satisfactory of the previous studies in terms of the size and representativeness of the sample.
Third, the present data has strengths in comparison with a number of previous studies in so far as they are based on a nationally representative and reasonably large sample size of 150 Jews and 5,300 gentile whites. The very close similarity between the present result and the Bachman result suggests that the best reading of the verbal IQ of American Jews is 107.5 (present study) or 107.8 (Bachman). These figures are well below previous estimates of Jewish verbal ability.
Four, an average verbal IQ of 107.5 would confer a considerable advantage for American Jews in obtaining success in professional work. There would be approximately four times as many Jews with IQs above 130, compared with gentile whites. This may provide a plausible explain for the 4.8 over-representation of Jews listed in American reference books of the successful such as Who’s Who, American Men and Women of Science, The Directory of Directors, The Directory of Medical Specialists and the like and calculated by Weyl (1989).
Five, the small difference of 1.4 IQ points between the non-Jewish whites and the “other” category is not statistically significant or very informative. The category is largely made up of Hispanics and Asians, which are themselves a heterogeneous category. Hispanics have mean IQs below whites (e.g. Herrnstein and Murray,1994), East Asians have about the same IQ as whites (Flynn, 1992) or slightly higher than whites (Lynn,1995), while South Asians have mean IQs lower than those of whites according to the calculations of Flynn (1992). Aggregating these groups produces a combined mean very close to that of non-Jewish whites.
Six, despite some three quarters of a century of research and quite a number of papers on the intelligence of American Jews there is still a lot of useful research to be done on this question. Probably the best approach would be to analyse Jewish abilities in terms of the construct of g and of the eight second order cognitive factors in the taxonomy of intelligence proposed by Carroll (1993) and the similar taxonomy advanced by McGrew and Flanagan (1998). These second order factors are fluid intelligence (reasoning), crystallized intelligence (verbal comprehension and knowledge), general memory and learning, visualization, broad retrieval ability, cognitive speed and processing speed. Probably all that can be concluded with a fair degree of confidence at present is that Jews have high crystallized intelligence (verbal ability) of which the vocabulary test used in the present study is a good measure and that on this ability their IQ in relation to gentile whites is approximately 107.5. The Backman (1972) provides IQs for several of the second order factors (given in the introduction to this paper) but these are so variable and in some instances so low as to raise doubts about their credibility. It is difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a non-verbal reasoning IQ of 91.3, and at the same time a mathematical IQ (“quantitative reasoning” in the McGrew and Flanagan taxonomy) of 109.7. It is also difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a verbal IQ of 107.8 while at the same time having a short term verbal memory IQ of 95.1. These results are in need of checking and replication. At present it is doubtful whether any conclusion can be reached about the intelligence of American Jews except that their verbal intelligence or, if this is preferred, their gc (crystallized intelligence) is about 107.5.
And here is a link to the list of White ethnicities IQs: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html Ernham 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
July 2005
The line "His research is principly involved in correlating intelligence and race" is not true at all. He does do research into the relationship between race and intelligence among a lot of other anthropological and psychological research, but like any scientist, his goal is not to try to prove any particular conclusion. He simply reports his findings. Besides, he is not trying to show a correlation, nor does he have to try to, since one has already been shown. Dsh34 5 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
I'm no postmodernist, but your philosophy of science is overly
optimistic to say the least.
- That is certainly the field he is best known for. He shows the correlation, regardless of whether previous and subsequent researchers have also found similar correlations. I think that it is open to question whether he is trying to prove a particular conclusion. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 00:47 (UTC)
- You may be right that that may be what he is best known for, but that does not mean his research primarily revolves around only that. Of his four books (all of which I've read, by the way) two of them deal with eugenics and dygenics. One of them is a history of the Pioneer Fund. The other one, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, deals with the relationship between national IQs and their GDP. The fact that there is a relationship between race and intelligence is only a corollary of that observation. Dsh34 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
- From his website:My major discovery is that the Oriental peoples of East Asia have higher average intelligence by about 5 IQs points than Europeans and peoples of European origin in the United States and elsewhere. That sems to confirm that intelligence & race are his major field, and that he has "discovered" correlations presumably unfound by others. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 01:10 (UTC)
- The fact that he has made that discovery still does not imply that "His research is principly involved in correlating intelligence and race." If you want to say something like "the relationship between race and intelligence has been a major part of his research", go ahead and do so, but the sentence as it stands is inaccurate. Dsh34 5 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
The reference link "http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/publications.htm" does not work.
- Thanks for pointing that out. It's fixed now. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Methodology
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/45664.html
The "Pioneer Fund" man to be published new study. BTW, I don't think the article really reflect the controversy over his person.
His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. One of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally…
The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.
Lynn is a very controversial individual, while the article is far from presenting this, as well as the critics of his studies. Fadix 01:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- In general, racial group differences persist on non-linguistic cognitive ability tests and when results are controlled for income. This is discussed at race and intelligence.--Nectar 01:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- There are various studies that contradict your hypotheses, I might bring examples when I have time in the other talk page. Fadix 02:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- None of your comments are topical, Fadix. IQ and the Wealth of Nations has its own wiki page. There are various studies that contradict your hypotheses, I might bring examples when I have time in the other talk page That would not be topical. -hitssquad 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have bolded something you skipped if you don't mind. Secondly, my point was about the lack of controversial character of the man and his research, which is relevant, research the biography of other people in Misplaced Pages, and you will see that it is "topical." Fadix 03:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I meant that that would not be topical on the other talk page -hitssquad 03:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- It will, they are critics of studies presented there. Fadix 03:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I meant that that would not be topical on the other talk page -hitssquad 03:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You can present your findings at GNXP ]. Wiki is not a debate forum. Since this section is off-topic, I move to delete it. -hitssquad 04:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Notable criticisms of Lynn's work are germane to both this article and IQ and the Wealth of Nations, though the latter might go more in depth. The main place to debate about Misplaced Pages's treatment of the genetic hypothesis of IQ differences between racial groups, though, is race and intelligence.--Nectar 04:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I know what Misplaced Pages is, when the study field of a person is covered and his study, it is IN topic to present the controversy serounding the person, and give a basic description of the critics serounding his research. And those are not my findings, I only present what is in his works and those that criticized them, since personal research is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Fadix 04:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't there an awefull lot of praise in the wiki article considering how much criticism this man has endured? Citing only those APA articles of praise rather that the myriad of criticisms? Admittedly, I am not NPOV on this man, I think he is the worst kind of racist and sexist.
Racism?
Hello, after being amused by its paper about IQ differences between women and men, I am pretty shocked today to see his conclusions on a European IQ study. His "northern guys became smarter in the fight with the harsh nature" stance seems to me very much similar to Nazi racial propaganda. To say it clearly, I believe the guy is racist. I found some articles talking about a possible Nazi filiation (e.g. ). I also suspect him of trying to prove Anglo-Saxon superiority over the Irish (in his last production, the British stand at 100 mean IQ, while the Irish go down in the second half of the list, with an IQ of 97, right before Russia). Nice to see that Ireland fares far better than the UK in both GDP and employment, even though they are not as smart. :) Dpotop 07:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- A 3 point IQ difference between two nations is easily caused by environment; the arguments about varying tendencies in genetic cognitive ability and brain size are more interested in large-scale differences between ethnic groups independent of which country they live in. Many scientists don't feel comparing average IQs is itself racist. --Nectar 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I don't say differences do not exist or should not be studied. What I question is the particular interpretation of experimental data given by this particular guy. It reminds me a lot of simple eugenistic arguments used in the first half of the 20th century. Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I didn't have much time to read his papers, but I find it difficult to believe that the 3 point difference I mentioned can be considered as statistically relevant. Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, I have a more fundamental objection to this kind of results: I do agree that one can measure brain sizes and scores in standardized IQ tests. However, I am not sure at all what these results mean. Someone labelled the result "cognitive ability". But I'm not sure this label is justified. Another suitable name, for me, would have been "ability to solve puzzles of the types X,Y, and Z", where X, Y, and Z are the preferred puzzles of the guy that was paied to create the test. Then, you have some statistic correlations (but no strict causality) between these results and some academic/life achievements. But why? I don't know, and I've seen no argument that I would call scientific, or convincing. And I believe that many charlatans exploit this lack of knowledge by promoting all sorts of stupid interpretations (such as "northern people are more intelligent because of the cold that forced them to think"). Dpotop 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"Irish have lower IQ"
This clown's "research" was reported in The Irish Times on Tuesday 28 2006. Who is funding this individual? Well, if a guy who claims to be a scientist but then talks about the "races" of the world deems the Irish to be less intelligent than the British then a) his thesis is false or b) he himself is, by his own logic, really Irish. I suspect that calling him the latter would be far more offensive. I know it would certainly be more offensive to the Irish. He is of course the latest in a centuries-long list of herrenvolk British loyalists telling the native Irish that they are "inferior". Dehumanising the natives is the oldest of all the colonial tactics. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. El Gringo 19:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Irish may or may not be more stupid than the British, at any rate the 2 populations are unlikely to get equal IQ scores and one must come lower.
I am more concerned about this remark:
Professor Lynn ascribes the differences between British and French intelligence levels to the results of military conflict. He described it as “a hitherto unrecognised law of history” that “the side with the higher IQ normally wins, unless they are hugely outnumbered, as Germany was after 1942”.
What an odd remark. It is characteristic of Totalitarian regimes to describe those with whom they disagree as crazy, however...
NectarFlowed if another user is introducing information specifically critical of Lynn's work than it should be allowed to stay.
159.134.229.205 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
not wanting to be rude
But Richard Lynn is a degenerate idiot, and in the interests of human development should be sterilized, or at the very least taken outside for a good kicking. IronButterfly 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I second that. This prick Lynn is a classic example of the racist sickness in British Academia today. He should be jailed for inciting hate crimes.User:Subhash Bose
- I actually agree with Richard Lynn. Paulus Caesar
Emeritus Professor?
Does anyone actually have any proof that Richard Lynn is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Ulster? The University of Ulster makes absolutely no mention of him, while the Observer cites his as an "Ulster academic" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1635380,00.html). Aside from his own website, and others seemingly as dubious, there seems to be absolutely no evidence that he holds an Emeritus Professor position anywhere.
- The claim "Emeritus professor of Psychology at the University of Ulster" can be attributed to the BBC. --Nectar 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Richard Lynn is not listed on the University of Ulster staff directory, therefore it seems odd to say that he is an Emeritus Professor AT Ulster Uni. If he is anything then he is an Emeritus Professor of Psychology, formerly of Ulster University. Beeromatic 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages - Proposition for Linking this site to "Scientific Racism"
I think the fact that our undoubtedly highly intelligent friend Richard Lynn probably gets significant pay for his, ahem, "academic studies" is indicative of the attitudes prevalent in the higher echelon within UK universities where there is meant to be fair competition. How does this guy get pay over someone needing health care research!?
- The study of intelligence is seen as important to many institutions, though many would find it inappropriate to study intelligence in the context of group differences. A large portion of Lynn's funding has been provided by the Pioneer fund, which is stated in the article. Scientific racism is linked to from the main page in this category, race and intelligence.--Nectar 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Emeritus Professor - Assasin Question?
I'm sorry to have written the above in haste, without considering this OBVIOUS possibility (NEVER believe what you read on wikipedia without several other info sources).
Has some innocent guy's photo been put on the wiki internet site just to get him whacked? I mean, who would be stupid enough to be a crypto-fascist in the UK (even if it is Ulster - which, let us not forget, is famous for it's variety of, ahem, civil methods of public discourse resolution) and *then* state that they had scientifically probven that the Irish were genetically and racially inferior in terms of intelligence to their English counterparts?!?
Perhaps we should feel some sympathy for the subject of the photograph! Is he still alive? (probably in a wheel chair, I'd say...).
- The photograph can be matched against other photos that are available; Lynn is still very active. Yes, death threats have been issued in the past against all the prominent researchers in this area, and assault has also occurred.--Nectar 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Bill Hamilton
- "His coverage of dysgenesis of health, all in just one chapter, is, in my opinion, not very adequate." and concludes that "This ends my list of suggestions of how Lynn's central paradox of his book might be resolved."
This doesn't seem based on a complete reading of the review. The paradox referred to is a paradox within the issue, not an inconsistency in Lynn's writing. Hamilton desiring expanded discussion of health dysgenesis and infectious diseases ("all in just one chapter") isn't a condemnation of the book, and his concluding paragraph is very clear about how he regards it.--Nectar 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- The passage as it is now suggests that Hamilton believes that Lynn is good with the facts in general, whereas Hamilton is clearly only praising a specific part of the book. I see no issue with letting Hamilton's own words stay, rather than using short quotes with ellipses to suggest a wholesale endorsement of the book and its theses, whereas Hamilton clearly does not think that Lynn's interpretation for the book's paradox are correct, and does not say that Lynn is good with the facts in general. --ReinesLicht
- This doesn't seem very convincing from a neutral point of view. Can you quote the large disagreement you see Hamilton having with the book?--Nectar 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would be difficult to spin Hamilton's statements against Lynn. His concluding paragraph is very clear: "Most of my ways are admittedly very speculative: however the paradox itself is such a gaping hole and so important for our future, it has seemed to justify me, a jackdaw on the chimney pot, throwing down a variety of sticks in the dark, hoping at least one of them will lodge and start a platform for a nest down there perhaps it may make combination with that stick which Lynn himself has more securely placed in his brave and fertile book."
- Hamilton indeed gives a wholesale endorsement of the book (in the sense of supporting it), but that shouldn't be expected to mean he doesn't have his own ideas about the topic and which topics should have be expanded into more chapters.--Nectar 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is clear that Hamilton did not refer to the entirety of Lynn's book when he says that he does a good job with the facts. The main text gives the erroneous idea that Hamilton agrees completely with the way Lynn is handling the facts, whereas Lynn finds part of the book to be good and part of it to be poor. --ReinesLicht
- Also, Hamilton thinks that the book is an important contribution but he clearly proposes alternative explanations for the main paradox of the book, different than Lynn's. A neutral observer cannot accept that Hamilton endorses Lynn's explanations as adequate; if he did, then he wouldn't have felt the need to propose alternative ones. Saying that a book is a good contribution in a problem is not the same thing as "endorsing" the book. --ReinesLicht