IQ And Global Inequality

[HeavilyArmed]

"IQ and Global Inequality, the new book by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, is an elaboration and extension of their IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which was reviewed on VDARE.COM by myself (Professor J. Philippe Rushton) and by Steve Sailer. In that book the authors presented measured IQs for 81 countries and estimated IQs for the remaining countries in the world—a total of 185. They showed that these IQs correlated around 0.70 with per capita income and rates of economic development. This was predictable, they argued, because intelligence is correlated with earnings among individuals. Nations are aggregates of individuals, so the same correlation could plausibly be expected across nations. "Entire Review (http://www.vdare.com./rushton/061207_iq.htm)

This topic is well out of the mainstream. The dogma associated with multi-culturalism and cultural relativism will be seriously at odds with such work. I imagine that the line of attack on such a book will follow the path taken against 'The Bell Curve' ten years ago where many in the social sciences made an all out effort to abandon IQ as a measure of anything. Add to that the redefinition of race and you can remove any of the metrics used to make these arguments.

I'm convinced that this line of effort to discredit these ideas is wholly disingenuous and almost strictly political instead of scientific. The idea that wealth correlates with intelligence is so simple and intuitive that its rejection I find quite stunning.

Jump right in with 21st century enlightenment and tell me why I'm a so out of step.

[luckyme]

I'm always amazed at how much the Saudi IQ has risen in 100 years or so. to say nothing of the chinese lately.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

no suprise that IQ correlates with wealth

no suprise that some will think this confirms their prejudices.

chez

[CallMeIshmael]

"The idea that wealth correlates with intelligence is so simple and intuitive that its rejection I find quite stunning."


I dont think anyone would argue that wealth doesnt correlate with intelligence.

Many suffer from the problem of assuming causation from correlation, and you appear to be making this error here.

[DougShrapnel]

You are out of step because IQ tests measure wealth much more accurately then they measure intelligence.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, some of these phenomena have positive feedback relationships. For instance, countries whose populations have high IQs have high per capita incomes, which enable them to provide high quality nutrition, education, and health care for their children, and these enhance their children’s intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things like this should tip you off that their research isn't going to be fully reliable. They fully admit that nutrition effects intelligence, but their research is set up in such a way that they cannot isolate that variable. Think about how lines of countries are drawn. Natural boundries like oceans, mountains, valleys and rivers often play key roles in where these lines are placed, and all of these things are going to influence the quality of soil, growing seasons and weather patterns, which in turn will effect the nutritional base of the country. How can they possible isolate this variable to make sure that nutrition isn't the base casue of the IQ inequality and that wealth disparity is simply a function of nutritional disparity? Results from studies that use national boundries are notoriously inaccurate because they cannot isolate the wide range of variables between nations.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Many suffer from the problem of assuming causation from correlation, and you appear to be making this error here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull a quote out of my post to support your point instead of just pulling some cliché out of your ass.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many suffer from the problem of assuming causation from correlation, and you appear to be making this error here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull a quote out of my post to support your point instead of just pulling some cliché out of your ass.

[/ QUOTE ]


What was the point of this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm convinced that this line of effort to discredit these ideas is wholly disingenuous and almost strictly political instead of scientific. The idea that wealth correlates with intelligence is so simple and intuitive that its rejection I find quite stunning.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying that you think people are rejecting what is STATISTICALLY PROVEN in the OP (that there is simply a correlation) or are you saying that you can't believe that people would deny the causation?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
How can they possible isolate this variable to make sure that nutrition isn't the base casue of the IQ inequality and that wealth disparity is simply a function of nutritional disparity?

[/ QUOTE ]

A point worth considering.

I think that controlling for nutrition here was problematic beyond solution. My opinion, social science is often only marginally science. On many topics one can find peer reviewed papers stating 'A' and also stating 'Not A'. I tend to lean heavily on my own good sense.

[arahant]

I'm assuming you haven't read the book, and are just making up an argument. You may want to consider the possibility that the authors address confounding variables, or verify that they don't, before you start trying to poke holes in their work.

To claim a priori that it is impossible to isolate the effect of any one variable is tantamount to saying that we may as well not examine ANY variables to look for causes of wealth discrepancies.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many suffer from the problem of assuming causation from correlation, and you appear to be making this error here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull a quote out of my post to support your point instead of just pulling some cliché out of your ass.

[/ QUOTE ]


What was the point of this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm convinced that this line of effort to discredit these ideas is wholly disingenuous and almost strictly political instead of scientific. The idea that wealth correlates with intelligence is so simple and intuitive that its rejection I find quite stunning.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you saying that you think people are rejecting what is STATISTICALLY PROVEN in the OP (that there is simply a correlation) or are you saying that you can't believe that people would deny the causation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair to assume many will attack it because they fear the idea of some causal relationship. But the social scientist will likely attact the study methodology as they did with 'The Bell Curve' as a proxy for attacking the possible implications.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can they possible isolate this variable to make sure that nutrition isn't the base casue of the IQ inequality and that wealth disparity is simply a function of nutritional disparity?

[/ QUOTE ]

A point worth considering.

I think that controlling for nutrition here was problematic beyond solution. My opinion, social science is often only marginally science. On many topics one can find peer reviewed papers stating 'A' and also stating 'Not A'. I tend to lean heavily on my own good sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to how you can have any meaningful intuition as to whether nutrition is the real root cause, or how much of the actual cause is made up for in nutrition disparities, since you admit that there isn't any simple or perhaps any possible way of eliminating the nutrition part of the equation. I think you might have a point that people will want to reject the idea for emotional or dishonest reasons, but isn't it possible (likely) that you are doing the same? Your 'intuition' tells you that nutrition isn't all of it, or (my interpretation of your posts) isn't the most significant part of it, but how can this be based on anything besides your own prejudices? You've just said there isn't really any way for your actual, objective experiences to factor out the nutritional aspect.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to lean heavily on my own good sense.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ah! confiming my prejudice that you were doing no more than confirming yours.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to lean heavily on my own good sense.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ah! confiming my prejudice that you were doing no more than confirming yours.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A pithier way of making the same point I was.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to assume many will attack it because they fear the idea of some causal relationship. But the social scientist will likely attact the study methodology as they did with 'The Bell Curve' as a proxy for attacking the possible implications.

[/ QUOTE ]


This didnt answer my question


What are you taking away from this?

1) That IQ differences are responsible (at least partly) for differences in things like GDP between countires

or

2) That GDP differences are responsible (at least partly) for differences in things like IQ between countires

or

3) GDP and average IQ of a country tend to increase together. Direction of causation is uknown.



I have a feeling you are drawing number 1 (and it appears arahcant wants to pluck causation here as well), when really the data only allows 3.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you haven't read the book, and are just making up an argument. You may want to consider the possibility that the authors address confounding variables, or verify that they don't, before you start trying to poke holes in their work.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, i have not read the work. If this synopsis is a faithful representation of the work it exposes several potential flaws. The one i mentioned about nutrition is particularly signifigant becasue the method that they chooseexacerbates an a problem that is innate before they try to solve it, this screams be carefull when interpreting their results. However you are correct when i said
[ QUOTE ]


Things like this should tip you off that their research isn't going to be fully reliable

[/ QUOTE ]

What i should have said is that the method of using national lines to describe the groups should make you more skeptical of the results than usual.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that wealth correlates with intelligence is so simple and intuitive that its rejection I find quite stunning.


[/ QUOTE ]
You say "wealth" here but the study you are talking about deals with per capita income and economic devolopment, so I'm going to use current income as the dependent variable here.

More sophisticated analysis has shown that IQ is actually not a very good determinant of an individual's income; quality and quantity of one's schooling and one's current wealth-which is largely inherited or given to somebody by their parents (money creates more money) are far more important. IQ and income are indeed correlated, but once you use more refined techniques that take into account other variables, we can see that these other things I mentioned "explain away" most of the correlation between IQ and income.

Fortunately, some of the best studies done on this issue are available online free of charge:

"The Inheritance of Inequality" (http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/intergen.pdf)

"The Determinants of Earnings: A Behavioral Approach" (http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/jelpap.pdf)

The same thing likely applies to Global Inequality: The people and nations who are poor world wide are primarily poor because their parents were poor/left them with an impoverished nation, and they have less and a lower quality education than those who are better off.

Also, as others have reminded you, nurture effects IQ: one's family and community environment, nutrition, as well as the quantity and quality of one's schooling, has an effect on one's IQ. Therefore, even if it was true that some nations are poor because they have lower collective IQ's relative to other nations, it would not follow that the reason for those nations being poor is not the result of poor education and environmental influences that are the result of historical contingencies (colonialism, wars, natural disasters, etc.).

Hence, the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important in determining the income of a nation or individual than IQ.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might have a point that people will want to reject the idea for emotional or dishonest reasons, but isn't it possible (likely) that you are doing the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are terminally dull, you hold an opinion. To be human is to discriminate.

I believe that intelligence among humans is a good indicator of many future life outcomes. I further believe that there is some heritable component to intelligence. But that's not what got me going here. I really enjoy hearing the disingenuous attacks on this type of research. They are very telling of the fears of the toe tag PC crowd. It amuses me. Since so much of the current PC dogma is built on a card house foundation the twists and turns required to refute items that seem, to me obvious, are a wonder to behold.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you might have a point that people will want to reject the idea for emotional or dishonest reasons, but isn't it possible (likely) that you are doing the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are terminally dull, you hold an opinion. To be human is to discriminate.

I believe that intelligence among humans is a good indicator of many future life outcomes. I further believe that there is some heritable component to intelligence. But that's not what got me going here. I really enjoy hearing the disingenuous attacks on this type of research. They are very telling of the fears of the toe tag PC crowd. It amuses me. Since so much of the current PC dogma is built on a card house foundation the twists and turns required to refute items that seem, to me obvious, are a wonder to behold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a pretty good way of dodging the second part of my question, which is accusing you of doing the exact same thing you are demonizing, and for exactly the same reasons.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling you are drawing number 1 (and it appears arahcant wants to pluck causation here as well), when really the data only allows 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am definitely not picking 1. I assume (without any good basis /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) that 1 has SOME effect. I really have no clue how much. I'm just not willing to ignore the possibility of 1 because it's hard to remove confounding variables.

I haven't read either of these books. Maybe I will. I assume (again, without evidence /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), that the authors at least made an attempt to address the contribution of circular factors like nutrition.

I'm also hesitant to assume that these books make the claim that IQ is the 'ultimate' causal factor, rather than half of a self-reinforcing problem. When Bell Curve came out, it really made very weak claims about the genetic basis of IQ, and it looked like what claims were made were for the sake of stirring up trouble. Most of what was in the book was solid and obvious, but there were vociferous attacks about the few more speculative sections, which tried to paint the entire book as a ridiculous manifesto.

I think there is a tendency for readers to react too strongly to these sorts of things, and create strawmen. A lot of people read 'Africans have lower IQ's' as 'Black people are stupid, and the reason is entirely due to inherent genetic differences'.

[Propertarian]

Andy Fox posted this from an article recently posted in the politics forum ( link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazi...&ei=5087%0A)) , and it certainly explains part of the reason why some nations stay poor and others stay rich, in addition to arguing persuasively that we the privileged should do something about this:

"Thomas Pogge, a philosopher at Columbia University, has argued that at last some of our affluence comes at the expense of the poor. He bases this claim not simply on the usual critique of the barriers that Europe and the United States maintain against agricultural imports from developing countries but also on less familiar aspects of our trade with developing countries. For example, he points out that international corporations are willing to make deals to buy natural resources from any government, no matter how it has come to power. This provides a huge financial incentive for groups to try to overthrow the existing government. Successful rebels are rewarded by being able to sell off the nation's oil, minerals or timber.

"In their dealings with corrupt dictators in developing countries, Pogge asserts, international corporations are morally no better than someone who knowingly buys stolen goods--with the difference that the international legal and political order recognizes the corporations, not as criminals in possession of stolen goods but as the legal owners of the goods they have bought. This stiuation is, of course, beneficial for the industrial nations, because it enables us to obtain the raw materials we need to maintain our prosperity, but it is a disaster for resource-rich developing countries, turning the wealth that should benefit them into a curse that leads to a cycle of coups, civil wars, and corruption asnd is of little benefit to the people as a whole.

"In this light, our obligation to the poor is not just one of providing assistance to strangers but one of compensation for harms that we have caused and are still causing them."

[arahant]

Nothing like philosophers commenting on international affairs.

The alternative to doing business with governments that were created by force, of course, is embargo. So suddenly we can't do business with large chunks of the world, and Pogge's colleagues, if not he himself, are calling us colonialist and arrogant for assuming that we can direct the internal politics of other countries.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative to doing business with governments that were created by force, of course, is embargo. So suddenly we can't do business with large chunks of the world, and Pogge's colleagues, if not he himself, are calling us colonialist and arrogant for assuming that we can direct the internal politics of other countries.

[/ QUOTE ] Pogge didn't argue for embargoes; read the last sentence, he argued that we owe them compensation for the harms we have caused them.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The alternative to doing business with governments that were created by force, of course, is embargo. So suddenly we can't do business with large chunks of the world, and Pogge's colleagues, if not he himself, are calling us colonialist and arrogant for assuming that we can direct the internal politics of other countries.

[/ QUOTE ] Pogge didn't argue for embargoes; read the last sentence, he argued that we owe them compensation for the harms we have caused them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we owe them compensation, then we did something 'wrong'. Since what we did (do) here was trade with their governments, this is the 'wrong'. If that is morally 'wrong', then there is presumably some alternative that is morally 'right'. Maybe 'embargoes' is too specific, but clearly, we need to interact with them in some way. I'm just saying, I don't think that it is so obvious that one approach is more moral than another, and you will certainly find plenty of disagreement about the best way to handle a regime we don't like.

If we fail to trade with governments that were formed by force or that we dislike, it's easy to argue that THAT hurts the population, too.

[The once and future king]

Do you think there is a correlation between IQ and % of population in prison?

[BobOjedaFan]

[ QUOTE ]
You are out of step because IQ tests measure wealth much more accurately then they measure intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and these tests are 'racist' as well. Math questions are so White biased. As we as the englush questions, whites have a monopoly on correct grammar obviously, there should be 'jive' questions on the IQ tests, lol.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Since what we did (do) here was trade with their governments, this is the 'wrong'. If that is morally 'wrong', then there is presumably some alternative that is morally 'right'. Maybe 'embargoes' is too specific, but clearly, we need to interact with them in some way.

[/ QUOTE ] How about trade with them if they have a democratically elected governemnt, but don't trade with them otherwise, and announce this position to all?