I’m focusing on my research on IQ for now. I will publish my findings and arguments at the Unz Review.

The question I’m answering is whether the black white IQ gap found on many tests is ultimately caused by racial genes or something else. I believe the question has already been settled by certain global developments which were missed by the IQ community, analytically.

When news reports started discussing how black immigrants and their children were taking most of the black places at elite universities, the question was settled. Yes, it’s no big deal if black immigrants are showing superior intelligence (compared to native blacks) since they could be just highly selected, but immediately they said “and their children”, it was over.

There is no explanation you can give for this trend that is consistent with a racial genetic hypothesis: my articles at Unz.com will show that you can’t explain those three words (“and their children”) under the current hereditarian conclusions on racial intelligence without contradicting either yourself or your premises.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “And Their Children: the three words that ended the IQ debate.

  1. Dear Mr Chisala

    Just a quick note to say how much Ive enjoyed your articles and involvement in the debate in Unz.com.

    Have you any knowledge of the Zimbabwean immigrants to the UK? Of the little I know they seem to have pretty terrible back stories, a tough time with visas and subsequent issue starting careers and yet are pretty successful academically and in the workplace.

  2. I think you have misunderstood the concept of regression to the mean. It does not mean that the children of high achieving blacks will statistically have a mean IQ equal to the overall black mean. What it means is there is a chance that the IQ will regress towards the mean. But if selection for intelligence continues in the subsequent generation then there will be statistically higher IQs again among those children. In the case of African immigrants, they are often drawn form higher class Africans who may have been selected for intelligence and achievement already over many generations before even reaching America. If regression to the precise mean was literally true then there would be no such thing as dairy cows or champion breed race horses. In fact there would be no such thing as evolution via natural selection at all.

    1. I obviously haven’t misunderstood the very simple concept of “regression to the mean.” At no point have I said that the children of high achieving blacks should be “equal” to the overall black mean (that’s not what regressing “to” means). I said it should regress TO that mean. Or, TOWARD that (lower) mean. The whole point is that there is NO evidence suggesting that the children of high achieving black IMMIGRANTS have IQs that have regressed TO a lower mean (or regressed MORE) than that of the children of similarly high achieving whites, as racial hereditarians predict.

      1. I’m really curious about this as well. As a practicing data scientist I’m quite familiar with the idea of random processes regressing towards the mean of some likelihood distribution, but the intelligence of a child is hardly random. Is it not a function of the genes of the child’s parents, and if those parents are both highly intelligent, would that not suggest high intelligence on the part of the child inheriting those genes? After all, we don’t draw our genes from some random pool of genes common to our race, we get them from our parents. As such, why would you expect regression to the mean of a racial intelligence distribution to occur? What’s the suggested mechanism (genetic or environmental) by which you’d expect that regression to occur? I’d think that children would tend to have intelligence that was roughly equivalent to the intelligence of his/her parents, ceteris paribus, not the average intelligence of his/her racial group (or any other group you’d like to put them in, other than other children of smart parents). Happy to read any relevant papers you’d like to cite. Thanks.

  3. The parents themselves having a higher IQ, SES, education, etc, has already an non-genetic “hereditary” effect in increasing the odds of offspring with a higher IQ, I think that’s well accepted even by the most hardcore but not “environmentally deniers” of the “genetic-hereditarians”.

    That being said, I think that it would still be expected somewhat of a regression toward the mean for a “purely” genetically determined trait, unless its genetic determination happens to be in a somewhat simple fashion such as of blue eyes. While it’s not realistic to expect that all intelligence-related genes are like that, perhaps some are. And then such cases would perhaps be of extreme interest in screening for “intelligence genes”. If these are on less-admixed/”purer” Black populations/lineages, they’d be expected to be quite rare among other Blacks of the same population, and perhaps also be present on populations hypothesized to have higher genetic IQ (not necessarily, though, there could have been of course genetic variation in IQ that arose elsewhere).

    Perhaps a similar prediction would be that admixed “Black” populations in America (they’re about 30% “white”) would have more variation, including extreme variation, IQs higher than usual, and also lower than usual, as sometimes individuals would have or lack high-IQ genes of both parent populations. Again, this seems an ideal “natural experiment” waiting for a methodological screening.

    I have the impression, though, that the IQ in such mixed populations tends also to be intermediate, which is probably interpreted by hereditarians in favor of an essentially exclusively additive genetic inheritance. But then that’s kind of troubled with purer populations that were expected to have lower IQs having IQs close to the other higher-IQ population. I guess the “best” hereditarian explanation would be that IQ is highly convergently evolved and mixed populations have an effect of “hybrid depression”… which is basically the opposite of the additive inheritance…

    But I may be saying lots of BS because I haven’t really studied this or anything really, just leaving this as a cautionary note as sometimes I leave the impression I know more than I really do.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s