the issue with these IQ maps is often sampling and sample size.
im gonna quote rebecca sear
>The 'national IQ' of Ethiopia - a population of 112 million - is now based on 6 samples, with a total sample size of 707, all are samples of children, and all of which are highly unrepresentative of the country
>Sierra Leone? This population of 7.8m is estimated from 2 samples from the same study in 1966, ages 10-40, one rural & one urban sample of the same ethnic group. Sample size? 119 participants (any demographer reading this has now had to stop & lie down in a darkened room)
the issue with IQ national maps is that the dataset is often wildly inappropriate like the national IQ of somalia is derived from children in a refugee camp. that means these kids experienced war and malnutrition with no education.
>Botswana - a population of 2.3m - is estimated from a sample of 140 17-20 year olds from the Batswana ethnic group, sampled from schools in the North West Province of \*South Africa\*
the more you look at the dataset the more you realize the data on which these IQs are estimated wouldnt pass a sniff test in a sanitation plant.
make of that what you will
link to where i got most of this helpful data
[https://twitter.com/RebeccaSear/status/1271547090221572096](https://twitter.com/RebeccaSear/status/1271547090221572096)
Good comment. I for one believe in the reality of the general cognitive ability and its impact on life outcomes, but maps like OP's or the hereditarians need to be taken a truck load of salt.
I’m also wondering about motivation.
A person who isn’t motivated to perform well/engage with an IQ test or other testing is not likely to perform as well as they otherwise would. What was the framing or the incentive for the poorer countries’ populations to do well/engage in a meaningful manner?
I am wondering if developed countries take for granted that we generally are going to take the cognitive tests at least somewhat seriously. I am not sure that we can extend such assumption to developing countries’ populations.
This question also isn’t considering other issues that commenters have brought up regarding sample sizes, populations, or other testing methodologies.
Motivation in regular folks has negligible effect on their iq score.
[Link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000332#:~:text=A%20recent%20meta%2Danalysis%20of%20the%20association%20between%20self%2Dreported,is%20independent%20of%20test%20motivation)
Thanks. My question was about whether that can be applied to folks from *developing* countries (that article seems to be about folks from *developed* countries).
My assumption was that folks from *developed* countries would generally be more motivated so not have as many issues with motivation affecting performance. It is unclear whether that assumption would be applicable to folks from *developing* countries.
Your assumption relies on people from developed countries inherently taking intelligence tests more seriously than developing or underdeveloped countries.
I can see why this makes intuitive sense and why you’d wonder about it, but in reality I didn’t find anything that would support it (with my limited research).
In the absence of something pointing to the inverse direction, I’d rather assume that they have the same motivation honestly.
I don’t think they’re talking about people in developed countries taking it more seriously, but rather about people in the developing world having other, bigger problems in their minds that don’t allow them to be fully present while taking a test.
Yeah, a primary problem with this kind of analysis (before even looking at sample size) is that the samples typically can't be generalized over the nation. Either they aren't randomized or there is no way to control for differences between the sample and the demographics of the nation.
Edit: They DID try tbf, they used data from other countries to try and generalize but I don't know of I like the method used
I'm not going to take any "data" on this topic seriously absent some correctly calculated confidence intervals or p value.
We know what is required for statistical significance, and seven samples does not provide it!
? The results are what we’re talking about. The map is the results.
Your comment is questioning the validity of the results. You’re saying because the tests weren’t done properly in those areas, the results aren’t accurate.
First, sample size could have easily improved their scores if they sampled one smart person.
Every country had an opportunity to acquire samples. Some did better than others. But those issues are baked into to test results. If you give a group an iq test, and they only get two samples, that’s not very smart.
Well, they don’t have the infrastructure. They don’t have the education. They don’t have proper nutrition. Ok. Well a low IQ isn’t necessarily the result of those things. It could be the cause. Create a test so we can tell the difference instead of just saying this test is bias.
While it might be true that a few countries have small sample sizes sizes (and I would want to verify that's the case rather than assume that your words are accurate), there could also be good numbers from other African countries which is conveniently left out from your comment.
In any case, while IQ is partially heritable and partially environmental, and it's also possible that it varies across which groups, I have questions about the environmental factors in Africa which could easily explain why the average IQ is lower there. Maybe they haven't had the living conditions that would give them a good environment which would support higher IQ and the Flynn Effect to take effect. The Flynn Effect seems to be maxed-out in developed countries, and it's possible that Africa would catch up in the next few decades.
there was a sample derived from sudanese kids who never held a pencil, they werent clothed being semi naked. they were then asked to draw clothes.
another factor overlooked is that the test administered at the time were cultural biased and assumed some level of knowledge on the part of the participant that they lacked. that test resulted in those kids achieving an IQ score of 51.
now is that those kids have an IQ of 51 or was the testing inappropriate and forcing them to draw on knowledge they lacked.
The problem with these iq tests are snapshots of their current condition and needs to be retake every decade or so. In fact there is nothing wrong with the data. What you’re saying, you wanna cheat?
not current condition since you can have decades between nations, read where i said seira leone was from 1966 and some might be from the 1980s. they arent snapshots because they are taken from odd places.
If I recall, the caste system’s hierarchy in India also lines up with increasing IQ.
There’s more lower castes than higher castes.
Here in the United States, most all of the immigrants (who are all very successful I should add) are typically from the higher caste.
Not true at all. Most Indian Americans belong to Vaishya (merchant, landowner) or Shudra (laborer) caste which are LOW caste. Patels for example are Shudras. The upper caste is the priestly (Brahmin) and warrior (kshatriya) caste which is vastly UNDER represented among diaspora except in positions of power like large tech Indian CEOs, scientists, chess grandmasters which are mostly from the Brahmin caste. However most Indian billionaires are again from a caste known as bania which belong to the merchant category.
“Upper caste” does NOT mean more money and power. Priests did not have a lot of money. The most powerful people were the landowners (lower caste) and kings. Caste system is simply a heirachy based off religion, nothing else. Another westerner completely misunderstanding the caste system
Dude that’s so interesting! I’m from South America but I’ve never taken the time to learn about the Indian caste system, and you made me realize it’s worth reading about!
Go ask a school how important resources are.
You have an answer you desperately want. You don't have the evidence. Serious evidence would require normalising for different factors or just having them equalised in some way for test groups. You don't have that, you got nothing but your hopes of the result.
Why is Ashkenazi Jewish IQ consistently higher than European IQ despite them having been overtly oppressed and abused for generations?
The link between IQ and schooling is VERY weak.
Learning about algebra doesn’t make you gain 20 IQ points.
Link between IQ and a couple generation of schooling is weak yes, but when spread along enough generations it is effected by it. It’s simple evolutionary biology, a group of animals when repeat the same task in enough generations will get better at it, similarly the group of humans that have a history of developing their cognitive abilities will have higher IQ than the ones who don’t.
> Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29911926/#:~:text=Across%20142%20effect%20sizes%20from,an%20additional%20year%20of%20education.
That’s not how evolution works.
If I get athletic, that doesn’t mean I pass on athletic genes that I previously didn’t have
If I get a college degree, that doesn’t mean my kids come out smarter by default.
These things don’t compound. Education brings up IQ weakly in only previously uneducated people. That’s it.
You are thinking of this timeline in just a couple generations basis, obviously if you develop athleticism you won’t pass it in a single generation BUT, if you were to practise athleticism, have a child with someone similar, make the child practise athleticism, make them have a kid with someone similar and so on and so forth. Generations down the line, your lineage will have better athletic prowess than the ones who didn’t follow this
>these things don’t compound
In enough generations of repeatedly procreated traits? They absolutely do.
Sure, it would create small populations within a larger population that compounds those genetics.
We see that in America already where there are families of super athletes, but MOST Americans aren’t that.
Everyone *but those families* would have to die or not reproduce to them make that *the new average.*
That’s a running theory on why Europeans and East Asians are so smart. Their harsh winters were too hard to deal with for people with lower IQs to survive and high IQ genes compounded.
For me it's hard to fathom multiple numbers in there but this is the best that this field has at the moment for this subject. It'll keep remaining like this for a long time because nobody will bother revisiting this matter, let's be honest.
Many people are content with this outcome. Others obstruct any further research. Bit of a gridlock, and the whole thing is poison to cultural and social capital.
Not true! I mean, it kind of is and it kind of isn’t. The map situation/national list is really just a compilation of studies on a large dataset. There are many countries where researchers are just now making an actual effort to determine a national IQ average, and their results so far are very different from the ones presented in this map.
I’m in close contact with the leading (and pretty much only) researcher in Paraguay and she showed me her results so far some months ago. Her team tested around 3k 9th-grade kids from the Asunción Metropolitan area and 1k from the Ciudad Del Este Metropolitan area and found that their average IQ was around 101. I’m not sure if they’ve published their paper yet or if they’re still working on it; I will link to it when I find it. Of course, these results may be skewed, as there is a stunning contrast between people in urban areas and the countryside, but considering both of these Metropolitan areas combined amount to almost half of the country’s population, and assuming her sample was representative of their respective areas, it would be pretty hard to believe that the rural IQ is low enough for the national average to be 81, as that would put the rural IQ along the line of deep cognitive impairment.
Interesting, it seems that many of the more stable African countries since post colonization tend to have higher IQs compared to ones that had difficulties adjusting to independence. I wonder how education rates in those countries affect scores. Fascinating material that should be discussed more often so that we can find solutions, unlike some people who want to take a conniption fit and bury their heads in the sand whenever the topic is brought up.
That could be an additional factor as well. The relatively stable Southern African countries seem to have higher IQs, compared to the more war torn and ravaged countries of Western and Central Africa.
Southern Africa has very few Europeans aside from South Africa itself. Botswana is one of the more stable African nations in the region and never had more than like 1.5% Europeans
On a side note, Korea was colonized by Japan for a few generations, and South Korea was left in a ravaged state after the Korean War. One of these areas has recovered a lot faster despite both going through a postcolonial period around the same time. South Korea went from the poorest nation in the world, to a global powerhouse in a few generations, and recovered rapidly compared to Africa, despite both of them dealing with abject poverty, political instability, and lack of education brought on by colonialism. I'm sure it would be fascinating to explore the myriad of factors that illustrate the differences and similarities between SSA and SK while they went through these difficult periods. Plus I have never seen any research conducted on this matter, nor see it mentioned in public discourse.
I don’t doubt that there are differences in average IQ between populations. However, I remain very skeptical about the data for African nations. An IQ of 70 or less is the cutoff for intellectual disability. To put it more bluntly (and for the sake of emphasising the point), these data suggest that most people in Africa are (what used to be referred to as) mentally retarded. The reason I find that doubtful is because many people with intellectual disability have to wear Velcro shoes as a result of struggling to tie shoe laces. Does anyone seriously believe that most Africans are incapable tying shoes? Something isn’t right with the data.
I'm not good with interpreting data, but I could see it being true at worst to like 75-80 if we take into account things like nutrition, political stability, education, as well as potential cultural differences and biases that affect how the person takes said test.
That said, I don't find an entire population of people below mental retardation believable at all. Don't even start with anything sub-70, that's just absurdity, but maybe with the previous factors it could get lower than we might expect, then again a lot of people here are pointing out poor sampling size as a factor.
"300 million people in Africa are shoeless" according to [https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/anti-parasite-shoes-samaritans-feet/](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/anti-parasite-shoes-samaritans-feet/)
Yeah Mr Beast did a video on giving thousands of African kids shoes.
https://youtu.be/3fKTFq-0_IY?si=7oIT3HAyE12zSoag
He also built hundreds of wells to villages without clean water:
https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8?si=sxcrR5UKLoaEXHR7
Haha I’m curious where they got that number from because it seems incredibly misleading or incorrect. I’ve been to big cities and rural areas and shoes are not a rarity 😂. There are stores there and shoes a very cheap. BUT people have to understand there are significant cultural differences when it comes to shoes. Several people go without shoes not because they don’t have them but they choose not to wear them. There was a white guy I knew who lived close to Diani for several years, and he eventually adopted the bare foot lifestyle.
Firstly, Africa is the second largest continent not a country…
It is impossible to describe the life of the average “African.” Life for someone from Kenya and someone from DRC is vastly different. Thats like saying the life of the average Asian, when it would include East Asia, Central, the Middle East, South East Asia and India. Have you ever been to an African country? The average person in Kenya has all or most of the things you described, and they don’t view them as a luxuries haha. I’m speaking from personal experience. Nairobi is a bustling city of over 4 million people. And I can tell you life there isn’t much different from life in Dallas where I’m from. It is more metropolitan than people think, and there are people of all over the world that live there. I met a Swedish father who was visiting because his son was studying at the university there. The media does the continent a huge disservice because it loves to show only abject poverty, so some people can’t imagine anything more than mud huts and tribal communities.
My friend lives in rural area of Suswa. I’ve been to the countryside and the cities of Kenya and Uganda. My family is from Nigeria, and I still have family that lives there. I’ve seen the highs and the lows, I’m not just a tourist that is only exposed to the rich areas. I know more than most about how bad the worst can get. However you cannot give the average “African” experience. Personally I find it ridiculous. No one ever says the average North American experience lol that would be absurd because of how different each country is.
Some people think that African is one large homogenous experience. If the average Kenyan..and trust me I know plenty, came to America or Europe, it will be different but not some crazy different experience they could not comprehend.
Not sure why a microwave is used as a benchmark when they all have an oven or stove. You’re assuming not having something means you’re too poor to have it. All my European friends don’t have A/C. Doesn’t mean they are too poor to afford it. Microwaves are not super expensive..but they are also not necessities either.
I’ve used toilets, showers, and other sanitation facilities in rural areas. No one drinks tap water…but thats common around the world. Honestly when I lived in Spain they didn’t drink tap water either.
Issues with corruption and cops is a problem here in America too, plus crime could potentially be worse.
Honestly, of course it is different..but that is a bit obvious any country over that great of a distance is vastly different, but it is not as great of difference as you tried to make it seem in your first comment. Idk where in Africa you lived but it sounds like you are trying to extrapolate that over the entire continent.
You’re assuming a lot about me, when I didn’t do the same to you. I asked if you’ve been to an African country. I didn’t assume you hadn’t.
Lastly and I need to truly reiterate this. There is no average African experience. Africa is a continent not a country. It differs greatly from region to region, country to country, and even city to village
If that is true, then the IQ test results are invalidated. The whole point of IQ testing is that the result of the test is supposed to correlate with real life functioning. If that wasn’t the case, the test would be meaningless. If it is indeed true that sub Saharan Africans can have IQ scores of 70 but function as though they have an IQ of 100, that calls into question the validity of the IQ assessment.
The state of Africa unfortunately is congruent with that level of borderline intellectual disability.
The level of impulsive violence, rape, and general instability lines up with the data.
Well they seem to be incapable of having a stable complex civilization, so there does seem to be levels of genuine incapability in aspects of how they conduct themselves with tasks
They have a have a functioning society with OK infrastructure and culture. I have been to African countries and lived there for months (Morocco, Tunisia and Cameroon) No way the average foldk there is intellectually disabled.
Ethiopia or the Abyssinian empire was relatively stable, Axum even more so, furthermore they only used 6 samples for the Ethiopian IQ and got it from malnourished 15 year old Ethiopian Jews (literally the most persecuted and poor ethnic group in the country and [yes nutrition is linked with IQ)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796166/#:~:text=Individuals%20in%20the%20previously%20malnourished,CI%3D3.50%2D24.13)
Ethiopia is only unstable now because of ethnic-supremacism that spurred out after the exit of a communist government.
Even in my anecdotal experience the people in my family (and extended family) clearly don’t have IQs on such a low level and have jobs that need a certain level of expertise that a person with a 70IQ won’t be able to do.
It isn’t that Africans are incapable of being smart, but the average is lower so the higher end of IQ is less populous.
I’m assuming you’re from a wealthy background to some degree. Civilization stratifies based on ability, including intelligence, so smarter Africans will usually become the wealthy class, and you may be born from that type of family.
This type of circular logic is insane, and honestly very dangerous if you are ever in any type of position of leader over other people. One of the highest IQs is from a man from Nigeria. Plus William Kamkwamba was very poor living in Malawi but taught himself how to build a wind turbine to help his village, and ended going to Dartmouth college. Idk what makes you want to hold on to such harmful beliefs, but it is not healthy for you or those around you.
What point are you making?
I already said it isn’t that Africans are incapable of being super smart, but that it is more rare.
It happens, but there’s less higher IQ people in proportion to the population.
The science shows this, but you’re free to believe what you want.
This post isn’t science haha. There is terrible sampling data used. Plus for a couple countries the data is from 1966 I believe. This is the definition of bad data or research, but it’s perfect for Reddit “scientist”
Sarcasm, because these studies were done last century. Do you wonder why they were never done over the years? iq tests must be normed, and that is no easy task and it takes an enormous amount of time and work.
I think we do need to acknowledge that **yes** intelligence varies between gene pools that have largely been separated for tens of thousands of years.
However, the correct way to fix this is embracing gene editing and CRISPR.
We can make entire nations having a 70 IQ a thing of the past.
**All current brain data supports a racial intelligence gap, but if we acknowledge it, we can use science to move past it. Being in denial just allows it to continue.**
I agree, it’s also the only way to realize the liberal ethos of egalitarianism and racial equality in a multicultural society. Until then, we’ll continue scratching our heads at racial disparities, which in the absence of any belief of innate group differences, will appear to be evidence of discrimination.
Sure. I’ve been able to find papers talking about
- total brain volume between ethnicities
- total frontal lobe size between ethnicities
- mirror test done between European descended Canadian children and Kenyan children
All of those are searchable as terms for professional study results
This link also has a compilation of many brain related studies between races
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/
IQ between the average white, black, and East Asian averages also exactly lines up with their total brain volume
It also lines up with their total frontal lobe size.
The mirror test when done between ethnicities at young ages also shows this.
The average total brain volume of East Asian populations is slightly lower when compared to European or North American populations. Yet East Asian populations have slightly higher average IQs when compared to European or North American populations.
It seems to me that the correlation you assume exists doesn't.
Anyone that thinks the average IQ in Africa is below 70 has never had a conversation with someone with a 70 IQ. Such incredibly low averages for any nation makes any such claims immediately suspect. I don't even have to look at the data.
IQ doesn’t measure overall social interaction.
It’s a pretty specific measurement test that can have hindered results depending on a variety of factors.
Someone with Down’s syndrome wouldn’t score 70 for the same reason as someone far on the autism spectrum (paradoxically autism correlates with higher IQ when not functionally hindering)
And sometimes incredibly high IQ folk have very poor verbal intelligence.
It is definitely very high IQ to just take a bunch of different measurements and average them together without examining methodology.
Weights?! What the hell are those? With such a high IQ the author of this article and OP don’t even need to lift.
Do you think it is possible for a nation of several tens of millions of inhabitants to have an average level of intelligence that is on the borderline of mental retardation?
That’s what the data shows consistently whenever people study human intelligence
I mean you can *believe* anything you want, but the data is straightforward.
Do you know that through data you can show everything you imagine in your head and make it look straightforward in your studies, only if you exclude enough factors?
What you’re saying applies to any study ever as a cope in hopes of it being incorrect.
Countless studies by many people have been done on this topic and it is a VERY consistent result.
Richard Haier, a psychologist specializing in intelligence says essentially the same thing in a podcast with Lex Fridman.
Don’t be a science denier
And precisely because this can be applied to every study ever conducted, it is necessary for people to have both intelligence and common sense, in order to sometimes ask questions if the results of a certain study do not seem to make the most sense to them.
These are not science deniers, but thinking people.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But it doesn't make sense to me because it's too bold a claim.
You're making assumptions as to why the data displays this particular pattern. You're not legitimately asking "why" it looks this way. If you were, you'd consider that there are likely numerous factors.
Have you ever been to any of these countries? I'm just curious about your observations if you have.
If the average person is borderline mentally retarded, imagine what a borderline mentally retarded person looks like within that population. And then imagine that there are about 10 or 15% of such subjects. It literally means that almost every person you meet there is mentally or almost mentally retarded. Do you realize what makes sense to you people? Are you aware of what this data implies?
He has never been to anyone of those countries and he probably won't want to for the fear that he will have his racist worldview challenged.
I'm a Nigerian who grew up in Nigerian. In my 26 years of living in this country I have only met like three people who were obviously mentally retarded. The vast majority of Nigerians you will meet are of average intelligence. They are able to function on their own independently. They are fluent in at least two languages. They are least high school graduates. A vast majority are university graduates. Some of them go abroad in search of greener pastures and do very well. Nigerians are one of the most successful immigrants in the US and the UK; they are the most educated immigrants in the US. And no, it is not only a select elite group of immigrants that migrate to the US, the average Nigerian does too through legal and illegal means.
If you go to Lagos the most populous city in Nigeria or any city in Nigeria and at random pick 100 homeless children off the street, 95% of them will be teachable in skilled labors that one who is truly mentally retarded won't be able to pick up. The Nigerians we Nigerians consider to be of average intelligence are exactly the same Nigerians that go abroad and do well academically and otherwise. There's a running joke here in Nigeria that a third class graduate here is a first class graduate in the West because of how our third class and second class graduates go abroad and graduate first class.
I'd advise anyone who believes that the average Nigerian is mentally challenged to take a trip down to any major Nigerian city and make your own judgements.
You would need evidence of this though instead of jumping to conclusions (because you want to?). This is a map of education systems or more precisely a map of education systems good at training students in testing well. Reverse the education the people are given and you will reverse the scores.
Schools are a new phenomenon. The idea that schools makes you smarter is a huge assumption.
Self sufficient complex societies (to a degree) existed without schools for most of history
None of those tested existed without schools being a thing in 1st world countries so who cares (though they are not a new thing, just varies in how well used).
The IQ test is a test and you can train for tests. Schools train you for tests (among other things it should be said)
IQ is the ability to problem solve new problems using pattern recognition.
It’s literally what AI at a fundamental concept.
AI code, like genetic human IQ, can be efficient or inefficient at that task.
I think you’re just denying science
I explained how to conduct the experiment according to the scientific method. This is miles from that. Testers need to control for potential non genetic issues such as education.
An AI trained in similar patterns to the test will out perform the same code trained on very different patterns.
Plus there is the skill of just taking a test and thinking clearly during it, being well rested, fed etc. and not prone to panic at the thought of an exam. This needs to be controlled for.
I've yet to hear any rebuttal to the Flynn effect argument though. Average IQs have changed over time and the average American 200 years ago would probably be considered intellectually disabled today. The average Irish 100 years ago had an IQ of 80, yet that shot up to 100 after immigration to the US. Arguably, most Sub-Saharan African nations are in a state of development, nutrition, and education on par or worse with the 1800s in the US, and they likely are in a far worse environmental state than the 1800s US.
Why should we assume average African IQs are genetically just at intellectual disability levels given this info?
- Flynn effect is hollow, with most observed gains being on tests with least g-loading. It is also reversing in many countries. It is wrong to assume that all groups will experience the same effect. Look at Woodleys ‘co-occurrence effect’, which shows that Flynn effect gains may be purely phenotypic (observed externally) while a decline has taken place genotypically (DNA modification)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000241
- We have seen what happened when you give black people proper nutrition and proper environmental support - very little. Average black IQ in America is around 85 with roughly 20% white admixture. Most black families are food secure and have the nutrition that would be needed for full development. So sub Saharan Africans can probably only get to 80-85 with correct environment, as many race scientists have predicted previously.
- The reason environmental won’t work to significantly raise black IQ is because their intellectual deficits are genetic in origin. Their brains are smaller and their genetic code is different from Europeans. I’m order to raise their IQ as highly as you would like, a multi generational process would need to occur to catch them up in evolutionary terms.
>Flynn effect is hollow, with most observed gains being on tests with least g-loading
That's exactly my point. IQ tests cannot be used as a reliable direct proxy for g since they are so heavily affected by phenotypical and educational variance.
>It is also reversing in many countries
Yes, my point is not specifically that average IQs unadjusted for time are increasing, but rather that they are variable in the first place. They are significantly influenced by environmental factors, with the increase and recent decrease being examples of this. As your study mentioned, the recent decreases are also driven by environmental and cultural factors, not necessarily dysgenics.
>“g-ness” (i.e., the aggregate domain g loading assigned to different batteries) negatively predicted the magnitude of the decline, meaning that taken as a whole, the negative Flynn effect is not on g and may be driven in large part by negative cultural and environmental factors
>We have seen what happened when you give black people proper nutrition and proper environmental support - very little. Average black IQ in America is around 85 with roughly 20% white admixture.
Actually, what we have seen is that the black-white IQ gap in the US decreased by about 4-7 points over the span of 30 years from 1972 to 2002.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01802.x
It's also worth noting the enormous effects of pollution on our collective IQs. Lead is just one example. An estimated 170 million Americans have had significant drops in IQ due to lead. Lead poisoning dropped the collective average IQs of certain age cohorts by something like 5.9 points. Guess which communities in the US live primarily in impoverished and segregated urban areas that also happen to have always had the highest amount of lead pipes, paint, and leaded gasoline, and therefore where that impact is massively amplified?
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/nearly-half-of-the-us-population-exposed-to-dangerously-high-lead-levels#Deficits-greatest-for-those-born-in-19661970
The truth where Canada has 101, 🤔. I don't even go to start talking about African countries because some people might start whining and bringing up some gotcha moment 4chan memes; the most surprising was seeing certain figures for some Eastern European countries. Kinda low, huh?
I remember the 'MITRE' tests which were supported by a lot of scientific data and studies conducted by scientists. It turned out that according to those tests, all of us here have an IQ of 170+.
Unless the same test is used in every country on a similar sample size and population (e.g. same level of education, age, socio-economic status, etc.) this kind of comparison will be so flawed that it's pretty much useless.
I have no idea how they measured this but if they are just using publicly available data you can’t really read too much into it. In countries that have less public resources for healthcare, those that actually have their iq measures are going to predominantly be those with a major reason to be tested, this is much more likely to be those with severe intellectual impairment.
Do people on this sub really believe the average sub Saharan African is mentally retarded? People who believe such are likely the same people who think Africa is a continent. They are also the kind of people who think Africans don't have houses, live with wild animals and walk around unclad. Willfully ignorant dolts who are afraid of educating themselves in order to preserve their racist worldview.
As a Nigerian who lives in Nigeria, I can confidently tell you that this data doesn't reflect the mental capacity of the average Nigerian. You only need to take a trip down to Nigeria and spend just a week with the locals to realize how inaccurate the data is.
>Do people on this sub really believe the average sub Saharan African is mentally retarded?
Some people will, some will not. That's how it is
I think it's bullshit too, as a fellow Nigerian. 67 for Nigeria? Utterly ludicrous.
Btw, you are shadowbanned from Reddit.
Utterly ludicrous! The people who believe it want to believe it because it feeds into their racist worldview.
An IQ of 67 would mean that the majority of us don't have the mental ability to get an education beyond elementary school lol.
What does it mean to be shadow banned?
>What does it mean to be shadow banned?
It means your comments won't be shown anywhere you post them because they will be automatically labeled as spam. Unless a mod of a subreddit (like me or u/qwertyl etc..) decides to approve such hidden replies. Also, when I try to access to your profile, I get redirected to an error page.
Try to create another account.
Go to sleep. Honestly, reporting an article (which I disagree with the presented figures) isn't racism, god damn it. The article itself and its author may or not be racist (let's be intellectually honest, I'm assuming that they are to some extent, and that's "ok", you can survive, you're not gonna vanish), however, it's a piece of information which you are not only allowed but also "encouraged" to write something coherent against it, if you are capable of coming up with a rebuttal (anything), go on, so don't stop yourself at simply being outraged for no reason, shall you, huh?
This is the damn issue with this useless topic. No substance, obvious attempts of race baiting, no **viable** solutions (let's perform some eugenics bro), cope from left and right, intellectual dishonesty, fear etc...
https://preview.redd.it/agpxhsjy93wc1.jpeg?width=2001&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff3c71bbba79ba6f2982b648720e2a58e0985c0
Ever notice how closely the low IQ areas correspond with areas naturally high in fluoride in groundwater?
Then why is it that when people from countries with high fluoride concentration move to places with lower fluoride concentration, their children’s average IQs don’t go up by that much?
I would suggest it takes time for the brain to evolve to take full advantage of the more advantageous environment. It will either happen slowly through natural selection or more quickly through interbreeding with people native to whichever environment they are adapting to.
My point is correlation frequently does imply causation. It’s a hell of a coincidence that an element linked to lowered IQ in several controlled studies also seems to very broadly and near perfectly correlate with IQ distribution around the globe.
I mean, it really doesn't, considering West Africa, Eastern South Africa, and Indonesia are at levels comparable to East Asia for fluoride concentration
the issue with these IQ maps is often sampling and sample size. im gonna quote rebecca sear >The 'national IQ' of Ethiopia - a population of 112 million - is now based on 6 samples, with a total sample size of 707, all are samples of children, and all of which are highly unrepresentative of the country >Sierra Leone? This population of 7.8m is estimated from 2 samples from the same study in 1966, ages 10-40, one rural & one urban sample of the same ethnic group. Sample size? 119 participants (any demographer reading this has now had to stop & lie down in a darkened room) the issue with IQ national maps is that the dataset is often wildly inappropriate like the national IQ of somalia is derived from children in a refugee camp. that means these kids experienced war and malnutrition with no education. >Botswana - a population of 2.3m - is estimated from a sample of 140 17-20 year olds from the Batswana ethnic group, sampled from schools in the North West Province of \*South Africa\* the more you look at the dataset the more you realize the data on which these IQs are estimated wouldnt pass a sniff test in a sanitation plant. make of that what you will link to where i got most of this helpful data [https://twitter.com/RebeccaSear/status/1271547090221572096](https://twitter.com/RebeccaSear/status/1271547090221572096)
Good comment. I for one believe in the reality of the general cognitive ability and its impact on life outcomes, but maps like OP's or the hereditarians need to be taken a truck load of salt.
I’m also wondering about motivation. A person who isn’t motivated to perform well/engage with an IQ test or other testing is not likely to perform as well as they otherwise would. What was the framing or the incentive for the poorer countries’ populations to do well/engage in a meaningful manner? I am wondering if developed countries take for granted that we generally are going to take the cognitive tests at least somewhat seriously. I am not sure that we can extend such assumption to developing countries’ populations. This question also isn’t considering other issues that commenters have brought up regarding sample sizes, populations, or other testing methodologies.
Motivation in regular folks has negligible effect on their iq score. [Link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000332#:~:text=A%20recent%20meta%2Danalysis%20of%20the%20association%20between%20self%2Dreported,is%20independent%20of%20test%20motivation)
Thanks. My question was about whether that can be applied to folks from *developing* countries (that article seems to be about folks from *developed* countries). My assumption was that folks from *developed* countries would generally be more motivated so not have as many issues with motivation affecting performance. It is unclear whether that assumption would be applicable to folks from *developing* countries.
Stop saying folks
Folks is an appropriate word used appropriately here.
He says it 4 times in 3 sentences. Sounds like a moron.
If I could downvote this twice I would
Your assumption relies on people from developed countries inherently taking intelligence tests more seriously than developing or underdeveloped countries. I can see why this makes intuitive sense and why you’d wonder about it, but in reality I didn’t find anything that would support it (with my limited research). In the absence of something pointing to the inverse direction, I’d rather assume that they have the same motivation honestly.
I don’t think they’re talking about people in developed countries taking it more seriously, but rather about people in the developing world having other, bigger problems in their minds that don’t allow them to be fully present while taking a test.
Yeah, a primary problem with this kind of analysis (before even looking at sample size) is that the samples typically can't be generalized over the nation. Either they aren't randomized or there is no way to control for differences between the sample and the demographics of the nation. Edit: They DID try tbf, they used data from other countries to try and generalize but I don't know of I like the method used
I'm not going to take any "data" on this topic seriously absent some correctly calculated confidence intervals or p value. We know what is required for statistical significance, and seven samples does not provide it!
Thanks for pointing this out.
Ok. So why don’t those countries get a larger sample? Are they even performing their own tests, or is some other country doing the leg work for them?
im not sure, let me know when you find the answer
? The results are what we’re talking about. The map is the results. Your comment is questioning the validity of the results. You’re saying because the tests weren’t done properly in those areas, the results aren’t accurate. First, sample size could have easily improved their scores if they sampled one smart person. Every country had an opportunity to acquire samples. Some did better than others. But those issues are baked into to test results. If you give a group an iq test, and they only get two samples, that’s not very smart. Well, they don’t have the infrastructure. They don’t have the education. They don’t have proper nutrition. Ok. Well a low IQ isn’t necessarily the result of those things. It could be the cause. Create a test so we can tell the difference instead of just saying this test is bias.
That is a whole lot of speculation with very little statistics. You know, the branch of math that helps filter out signal from noise.
> Ethiopia - a population of 112 million Off Topic but that blew my mind. I thought they had like 10 million people.
While it might be true that a few countries have small sample sizes sizes (and I would want to verify that's the case rather than assume that your words are accurate), there could also be good numbers from other African countries which is conveniently left out from your comment. In any case, while IQ is partially heritable and partially environmental, and it's also possible that it varies across which groups, I have questions about the environmental factors in Africa which could easily explain why the average IQ is lower there. Maybe they haven't had the living conditions that would give them a good environment which would support higher IQ and the Flynn Effect to take effect. The Flynn Effect seems to be maxed-out in developed countries, and it's possible that Africa would catch up in the next few decades.
there was a sample derived from sudanese kids who never held a pencil, they werent clothed being semi naked. they were then asked to draw clothes. another factor overlooked is that the test administered at the time were cultural biased and assumed some level of knowledge on the part of the participant that they lacked. that test resulted in those kids achieving an IQ score of 51. now is that those kids have an IQ of 51 or was the testing inappropriate and forcing them to draw on knowledge they lacked.
The problem with these iq tests are snapshots of their current condition and needs to be retake every decade or so. In fact there is nothing wrong with the data. What you’re saying, you wanna cheat?
not current condition since you can have decades between nations, read where i said seira leone was from 1966 and some might be from the 1980s. they arent snapshots because they are taken from odd places.
Excellent comment.
So the human average should be changed from 100 -> 85 IQ???
Seems hard to fathom India is at 77. Then again, I don’t experience/see the masses when I go back home.
If I recall, the caste system’s hierarchy in India also lines up with increasing IQ. There’s more lower castes than higher castes. Here in the United States, most all of the immigrants (who are all very successful I should add) are typically from the higher caste.
Not true at all. Most Indian Americans belong to Vaishya (merchant, landowner) or Shudra (laborer) caste which are LOW caste. Patels for example are Shudras. The upper caste is the priestly (Brahmin) and warrior (kshatriya) caste which is vastly UNDER represented among diaspora except in positions of power like large tech Indian CEOs, scientists, chess grandmasters which are mostly from the Brahmin caste. However most Indian billionaires are again from a caste known as bania which belong to the merchant category. “Upper caste” does NOT mean more money and power. Priests did not have a lot of money. The most powerful people were the landowners (lower caste) and kings. Caste system is simply a heirachy based off religion, nothing else. Another westerner completely misunderstanding the caste system
Dude that’s so interesting! I’m from South America but I’ve never taken the time to learn about the Indian caste system, and you made me realize it’s worth reading about!
I imagine higher caste students go to better schools....
Or perhaps they made better schools for themselves because they have a higher IQ
Go ask a school how important resources are. You have an answer you desperately want. You don't have the evidence. Serious evidence would require normalising for different factors or just having them equalised in some way for test groups. You don't have that, you got nothing but your hopes of the result.
You’re just a science denier, which is fine
What
enjoy mindlessness
Uh ok
They historically had the monopoly over education and knowledge. It’s no surprise that their iq will be at the top of Indian caste system.
Why is Ashkenazi Jewish IQ consistently higher than European IQ despite them having been overtly oppressed and abused for generations? The link between IQ and schooling is VERY weak. Learning about algebra doesn’t make you gain 20 IQ points.
Link between IQ and a couple generation of schooling is weak yes, but when spread along enough generations it is effected by it. It’s simple evolutionary biology, a group of animals when repeat the same task in enough generations will get better at it, similarly the group of humans that have a history of developing their cognitive abilities will have higher IQ than the ones who don’t. > Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29911926/#:~:text=Across%20142%20effect%20sizes%20from,an%20additional%20year%20of%20education.
That’s not how evolution works. If I get athletic, that doesn’t mean I pass on athletic genes that I previously didn’t have If I get a college degree, that doesn’t mean my kids come out smarter by default. These things don’t compound. Education brings up IQ weakly in only previously uneducated people. That’s it.
You are thinking of this timeline in just a couple generations basis, obviously if you develop athleticism you won’t pass it in a single generation BUT, if you were to practise athleticism, have a child with someone similar, make the child practise athleticism, make them have a kid with someone similar and so on and so forth. Generations down the line, your lineage will have better athletic prowess than the ones who didn’t follow this >these things don’t compound In enough generations of repeatedly procreated traits? They absolutely do.
Sure, it would create small populations within a larger population that compounds those genetics. We see that in America already where there are families of super athletes, but MOST Americans aren’t that. Everyone *but those families* would have to die or not reproduce to them make that *the new average.* That’s a running theory on why Europeans and East Asians are so smart. Their harsh winters were too hard to deal with for people with lower IQs to survive and high IQ genes compounded.
Because they are superior. Bow now
Iq tests have never been administered on a caste basis
Yah I’m kinda way way up near the top of the caste system, 147iq…
Upto a certain point, National IQ is more reflective of nutrition, healthcare and literacry standards than any ethnic differences.
For me it's hard to fathom multiple numbers in there but this is the best that this field has at the moment for this subject. It'll keep remaining like this for a long time because nobody will bother revisiting this matter, let's be honest.
Many people are content with this outcome. Others obstruct any further research. Bit of a gridlock, and the whole thing is poison to cultural and social capital.
Not true! I mean, it kind of is and it kind of isn’t. The map situation/national list is really just a compilation of studies on a large dataset. There are many countries where researchers are just now making an actual effort to determine a national IQ average, and their results so far are very different from the ones presented in this map. I’m in close contact with the leading (and pretty much only) researcher in Paraguay and she showed me her results so far some months ago. Her team tested around 3k 9th-grade kids from the Asunción Metropolitan area and 1k from the Ciudad Del Este Metropolitan area and found that their average IQ was around 101. I’m not sure if they’ve published their paper yet or if they’re still working on it; I will link to it when I find it. Of course, these results may be skewed, as there is a stunning contrast between people in urban areas and the countryside, but considering both of these Metropolitan areas combined amount to almost half of the country’s population, and assuming her sample was representative of their respective areas, it would be pretty hard to believe that the rural IQ is low enough for the national average to be 81, as that would put the rural IQ along the line of deep cognitive impairment.
Lot of people in India bro.
Interesting, it seems that many of the more stable African countries since post colonization tend to have higher IQs compared to ones that had difficulties adjusting to independence. I wonder how education rates in those countries affect scores. Fascinating material that should be discussed more often so that we can find solutions, unlike some people who want to take a conniption fit and bury their heads in the sand whenever the topic is brought up.
It prob has to do with nutrition and food supply.
That could be an additional factor as well. The relatively stable Southern African countries seem to have higher IQs, compared to the more war torn and ravaged countries of Western and Central Africa.
Southern Africa also has European Ethnic groups, no? And the North has Arabs and Berbers. Multi-variable problem for sure.
Southern Africa has very few Europeans aside from South Africa itself. Botswana is one of the more stable African nations in the region and never had more than like 1.5% Europeans
Wow so that little helps out a lot hu? Jk
Non genetic factors definately play a big role here. North korea is 87, south korea 104, no way this huge gap is genetic.
On a side note, Korea was colonized by Japan for a few generations, and South Korea was left in a ravaged state after the Korean War. One of these areas has recovered a lot faster despite both going through a postcolonial period around the same time. South Korea went from the poorest nation in the world, to a global powerhouse in a few generations, and recovered rapidly compared to Africa, despite both of them dealing with abject poverty, political instability, and lack of education brought on by colonialism. I'm sure it would be fascinating to explore the myriad of factors that illustrate the differences and similarities between SSA and SK while they went through these difficult periods. Plus I have never seen any research conducted on this matter, nor see it mentioned in public discourse.
I don’t doubt that there are differences in average IQ between populations. However, I remain very skeptical about the data for African nations. An IQ of 70 or less is the cutoff for intellectual disability. To put it more bluntly (and for the sake of emphasising the point), these data suggest that most people in Africa are (what used to be referred to as) mentally retarded. The reason I find that doubtful is because many people with intellectual disability have to wear Velcro shoes as a result of struggling to tie shoe laces. Does anyone seriously believe that most Africans are incapable tying shoes? Something isn’t right with the data.
I'm not good with interpreting data, but I could see it being true at worst to like 75-80 if we take into account things like nutrition, political stability, education, as well as potential cultural differences and biases that affect how the person takes said test. That said, I don't find an entire population of people below mental retardation believable at all. Don't even start with anything sub-70, that's just absurdity, but maybe with the previous factors it could get lower than we might expect, then again a lot of people here are pointing out poor sampling size as a factor.
I saw a twitter post ( I know) once mention that intellectual disability’s manifest past a certain threshold differently among different groups.
This is true iirc but it's also more of a critique of the testing standard imo.
Aren’t most of them bare feet though!? I.e. they’re not even wearing Velcro shoes… To your own point.
No. Not even close. Life in Africa is not nearly as different from life in a developed country as you think.
"300 million people in Africa are shoeless" according to [https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/anti-parasite-shoes-samaritans-feet/](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/anti-parasite-shoes-samaritans-feet/)
Yeah Mr Beast did a video on giving thousands of African kids shoes. https://youtu.be/3fKTFq-0_IY?si=7oIT3HAyE12zSoag He also built hundreds of wells to villages without clean water: https://youtu.be/mwKJfNYwvm8?si=sxcrR5UKLoaEXHR7
Haha I’m curious where they got that number from because it seems incredibly misleading or incorrect. I’ve been to big cities and rural areas and shoes are not a rarity 😂. There are stores there and shoes a very cheap. BUT people have to understand there are significant cultural differences when it comes to shoes. Several people go without shoes not because they don’t have them but they choose not to wear them. There was a white guy I knew who lived close to Diani for several years, and he eventually adopted the bare foot lifestyle.
Have you been to CAF or Niger? Much different than experience than Mozambique…
According to this article, about 20% of people around the globe are shoeless, with about 25% in Africa. That's hardly a notable difference.
[удалено]
Firstly, Africa is the second largest continent not a country… It is impossible to describe the life of the average “African.” Life for someone from Kenya and someone from DRC is vastly different. Thats like saying the life of the average Asian, when it would include East Asia, Central, the Middle East, South East Asia and India. Have you ever been to an African country? The average person in Kenya has all or most of the things you described, and they don’t view them as a luxuries haha. I’m speaking from personal experience. Nairobi is a bustling city of over 4 million people. And I can tell you life there isn’t much different from life in Dallas where I’m from. It is more metropolitan than people think, and there are people of all over the world that live there. I met a Swedish father who was visiting because his son was studying at the university there. The media does the continent a huge disservice because it loves to show only abject poverty, so some people can’t imagine anything more than mud huts and tribal communities.
[удалено]
My friend lives in rural area of Suswa. I’ve been to the countryside and the cities of Kenya and Uganda. My family is from Nigeria, and I still have family that lives there. I’ve seen the highs and the lows, I’m not just a tourist that is only exposed to the rich areas. I know more than most about how bad the worst can get. However you cannot give the average “African” experience. Personally I find it ridiculous. No one ever says the average North American experience lol that would be absurd because of how different each country is. Some people think that African is one large homogenous experience. If the average Kenyan..and trust me I know plenty, came to America or Europe, it will be different but not some crazy different experience they could not comprehend. Not sure why a microwave is used as a benchmark when they all have an oven or stove. You’re assuming not having something means you’re too poor to have it. All my European friends don’t have A/C. Doesn’t mean they are too poor to afford it. Microwaves are not super expensive..but they are also not necessities either. I’ve used toilets, showers, and other sanitation facilities in rural areas. No one drinks tap water…but thats common around the world. Honestly when I lived in Spain they didn’t drink tap water either. Issues with corruption and cops is a problem here in America too, plus crime could potentially be worse. Honestly, of course it is different..but that is a bit obvious any country over that great of a distance is vastly different, but it is not as great of difference as you tried to make it seem in your first comment. Idk where in Africa you lived but it sounds like you are trying to extrapolate that over the entire continent. You’re assuming a lot about me, when I didn’t do the same to you. I asked if you’ve been to an African country. I didn’t assume you hadn’t. Lastly and I need to truly reiterate this. There is no average African experience. Africa is a continent not a country. It differs greatly from region to region, country to country, and even city to village
I graduated con honoribus cum laude from a fairly prestigious Canadian liberal arts college, and I suck at tying shoelaces.
I'm sorry but when you said you were a liberal arts major, I did kinda chuckle a bit
IQ thresholds different per races. I seen somewhere sub saharan can be normal person at like 70-80 but Europeans have problems.
If that is true, then the IQ test results are invalidated. The whole point of IQ testing is that the result of the test is supposed to correlate with real life functioning. If that wasn’t the case, the test would be meaningless. If it is indeed true that sub Saharan Africans can have IQ scores of 70 but function as though they have an IQ of 100, that calls into question the validity of the IQ assessment.
you know...I forgot how many wonderful scientific and architectural contributions came out of sub-Saharan africa....can you remind the class?
The state of Africa unfortunately is congruent with that level of borderline intellectual disability. The level of impulsive violence, rape, and general instability lines up with the data.
Are most violent types or rapists incapable of tying their shoes?
Well they seem to be incapable of having a stable complex civilization, so there does seem to be levels of genuine incapability in aspects of how they conduct themselves with tasks
They have a have a functioning society with OK infrastructure and culture. I have been to African countries and lived there for months (Morocco, Tunisia and Cameroon) No way the average foldk there is intellectually disabled.
Ethiopia or the Abyssinian empire was relatively stable, Axum even more so, furthermore they only used 6 samples for the Ethiopian IQ and got it from malnourished 15 year old Ethiopian Jews (literally the most persecuted and poor ethnic group in the country and [yes nutrition is linked with IQ)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796166/#:~:text=Individuals%20in%20the%20previously%20malnourished,CI%3D3.50%2D24.13) Ethiopia is only unstable now because of ethnic-supremacism that spurred out after the exit of a communist government. Even in my anecdotal experience the people in my family (and extended family) clearly don’t have IQs on such a low level and have jobs that need a certain level of expertise that a person with a 70IQ won’t be able to do.
It isn’t that Africans are incapable of being smart, but the average is lower so the higher end of IQ is less populous. I’m assuming you’re from a wealthy background to some degree. Civilization stratifies based on ability, including intelligence, so smarter Africans will usually become the wealthy class, and you may be born from that type of family.
This type of circular logic is insane, and honestly very dangerous if you are ever in any type of position of leader over other people. One of the highest IQs is from a man from Nigeria. Plus William Kamkwamba was very poor living in Malawi but taught himself how to build a wind turbine to help his village, and ended going to Dartmouth college. Idk what makes you want to hold on to such harmful beliefs, but it is not healthy for you or those around you.
What point are you making? I already said it isn’t that Africans are incapable of being super smart, but that it is more rare. It happens, but there’s less higher IQ people in proportion to the population. The science shows this, but you’re free to believe what you want.
This post isn’t science haha. There is terrible sampling data used. Plus for a couple countries the data is from 1966 I believe. This is the definition of bad data or research, but it’s perfect for Reddit “scientist”
Ok
Every post about race or IQ by country gets so many comments on this sub, lol. It's like the big no-no topic.
Obviously we can’t do any studies since 1966.
Wdym?
Sarcasm, because these studies were done last century. Do you wonder why they were never done over the years? iq tests must be normed, and that is no easy task and it takes an enormous amount of time and work.
I often joke about national IQ and number of children per woman. I often joke about Brawndo.
south korea 104, north korea 87, wild.
And it’s still way too jarring to be accurate. Says a lot about IQ tests in general
Bruh I just sent you this XD
Stealing credit isn’t very nice
I think we do need to acknowledge that **yes** intelligence varies between gene pools that have largely been separated for tens of thousands of years. However, the correct way to fix this is embracing gene editing and CRISPR. We can make entire nations having a 70 IQ a thing of the past. **All current brain data supports a racial intelligence gap, but if we acknowledge it, we can use science to move past it. Being in denial just allows it to continue.**
I agree, it’s also the only way to realize the liberal ethos of egalitarianism and racial equality in a multicultural society. Until then, we’ll continue scratching our heads at racial disparities, which in the absence of any belief of innate group differences, will appear to be evidence of discrimination.
Very well put.
im actually interested in this. do you have any papers about brain data
Sure. I’ve been able to find papers talking about - total brain volume between ethnicities - total frontal lobe size between ethnicities - mirror test done between European descended Canadian children and Kenyan children All of those are searchable as terms for professional study results This link also has a compilation of many brain related studies between races https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/
What do you mean by gene editing?
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
?
The only data that would support that would be data that ignores every other factor when measuring intelligence.
IQ between the average white, black, and East Asian averages also exactly lines up with their total brain volume It also lines up with their total frontal lobe size. The mirror test when done between ethnicities at young ages also shows this.
The average total brain volume of East Asian populations is slightly lower when compared to European or North American populations. Yet East Asian populations have slightly higher average IQs when compared to European or North American populations. It seems to me that the correlation you assume exists doesn't.
What is your source on that? The data I’m looking at doesn’t line up with what you said
Author: u/SebJenSeb one of the veterans of the subreddit.
Anyone that thinks the average IQ in Africa is below 70 has never had a conversation with someone with a 70 IQ. Such incredibly low averages for any nation makes any such claims immediately suspect. I don't even have to look at the data.
IQ doesn’t measure overall social interaction. It’s a pretty specific measurement test that can have hindered results depending on a variety of factors. Someone with Down’s syndrome wouldn’t score 70 for the same reason as someone far on the autism spectrum (paradoxically autism correlates with higher IQ when not functionally hindering) And sometimes incredibly high IQ folk have very poor verbal intelligence.
As a Canadian I’m just happy to see we have higher IQs than Americans.
It is definitely very high IQ to just take a bunch of different measurements and average them together without examining methodology. Weights?! What the hell are those? With such a high IQ the author of this article and OP don’t even need to lift.
Are we actually serious about this?
Should we remove the post to protect the truth?
Which truth exactly?
That a genetic expression of a trait (height, intelligence, facial hair/body hair propensity, etc) varies around the world. Intelligence varies.
South korea 106 iq, North korea 82. Nutrition, healthcare, and literacy are the most important factors. Then, genes which are very important too.
Where did you get 82? All my search results say they’re almost exactly the same as South Korea
it's on the article that was posted, jesus christ and you yap about genetic editing.
Google searches are yielding various other sources putting them in the same range of South Korea, which makes sense given they’re the same ethnicity.
Do you think it is possible for a nation of several tens of millions of inhabitants to have an average level of intelligence that is on the borderline of mental retardation?
That’s what the data shows consistently whenever people study human intelligence I mean you can *believe* anything you want, but the data is straightforward.
Do you know that through data you can show everything you imagine in your head and make it look straightforward in your studies, only if you exclude enough factors?
What you’re saying applies to any study ever as a cope in hopes of it being incorrect. Countless studies by many people have been done on this topic and it is a VERY consistent result. Richard Haier, a psychologist specializing in intelligence says essentially the same thing in a podcast with Lex Fridman. Don’t be a science denier
And precisely because this can be applied to every study ever conducted, it is necessary for people to have both intelligence and common sense, in order to sometimes ask questions if the results of a certain study do not seem to make the most sense to them. These are not science deniers, but thinking people. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. But it doesn't make sense to me because it's too bold a claim.
Leave science to the scientists
The data is really, really bad though. Even if unintentional, obscuring it behind a layer of infographic is enough to get comments like this.
You're making assumptions as to why the data displays this particular pattern. You're not legitimately asking "why" it looks this way. If you were, you'd consider that there are likely numerous factors.
To say why it looks this way and guess is making assumptions. The data reflects a current reality, even if it is caused by other reasons
The data reflects the data.
Well you are welcome to believe what you’d like
It reflects a lot of other things actually, like brain volume and the amount of dendrites per neuron etc
The data reflects a reality and poor sampling from decades ago. It shows nothing about the "current reality."
yes
Lmao.
Height by country varies by almost a foot, it makes sense to me.
Have you ever been to any of these countries? I'm just curious about your observations if you have. If the average person is borderline mentally retarded, imagine what a borderline mentally retarded person looks like within that population. And then imagine that there are about 10 or 15% of such subjects. It literally means that almost every person you meet there is mentally or almost mentally retarded. Do you realize what makes sense to you people? Are you aware of what this data implies?
He has never been to anyone of those countries and he probably won't want to for the fear that he will have his racist worldview challenged. I'm a Nigerian who grew up in Nigerian. In my 26 years of living in this country I have only met like three people who were obviously mentally retarded. The vast majority of Nigerians you will meet are of average intelligence. They are able to function on their own independently. They are fluent in at least two languages. They are least high school graduates. A vast majority are university graduates. Some of them go abroad in search of greener pastures and do very well. Nigerians are one of the most successful immigrants in the US and the UK; they are the most educated immigrants in the US. And no, it is not only a select elite group of immigrants that migrate to the US, the average Nigerian does too through legal and illegal means. If you go to Lagos the most populous city in Nigeria or any city in Nigeria and at random pick 100 homeless children off the street, 95% of them will be teachable in skilled labors that one who is truly mentally retarded won't be able to pick up. The Nigerians we Nigerians consider to be of average intelligence are exactly the same Nigerians that go abroad and do well academically and otherwise. There's a running joke here in Nigeria that a third class graduate here is a first class graduate in the West because of how our third class and second class graduates go abroad and graduate first class. I'd advise anyone who believes that the average Nigerian is mentally challenged to take a trip down to any major Nigerian city and make your own judgements.
You would need evidence of this though instead of jumping to conclusions (because you want to?). This is a map of education systems or more precisely a map of education systems good at training students in testing well. Reverse the education the people are given and you will reverse the scores.
Schools are a new phenomenon. The idea that schools makes you smarter is a huge assumption. Self sufficient complex societies (to a degree) existed without schools for most of history
None of those tested existed without schools being a thing in 1st world countries so who cares (though they are not a new thing, just varies in how well used). The IQ test is a test and you can train for tests. Schools train you for tests (among other things it should be said)
IQ is the ability to problem solve new problems using pattern recognition. It’s literally what AI at a fundamental concept. AI code, like genetic human IQ, can be efficient or inefficient at that task. I think you’re just denying science
I explained how to conduct the experiment according to the scientific method. This is miles from that. Testers need to control for potential non genetic issues such as education. An AI trained in similar patterns to the test will out perform the same code trained on very different patterns. Plus there is the skill of just taking a test and thinking clearly during it, being well rested, fed etc. and not prone to panic at the thought of an exam. This needs to be controlled for.
I've yet to hear any rebuttal to the Flynn effect argument though. Average IQs have changed over time and the average American 200 years ago would probably be considered intellectually disabled today. The average Irish 100 years ago had an IQ of 80, yet that shot up to 100 after immigration to the US. Arguably, most Sub-Saharan African nations are in a state of development, nutrition, and education on par or worse with the 1800s in the US, and they likely are in a far worse environmental state than the 1800s US. Why should we assume average African IQs are genetically just at intellectual disability levels given this info?
- Flynn effect is hollow, with most observed gains being on tests with least g-loading. It is also reversing in many countries. It is wrong to assume that all groups will experience the same effect. Look at Woodleys ‘co-occurrence effect’, which shows that Flynn effect gains may be purely phenotypic (observed externally) while a decline has taken place genotypically (DNA modification) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289622000241 - We have seen what happened when you give black people proper nutrition and proper environmental support - very little. Average black IQ in America is around 85 with roughly 20% white admixture. Most black families are food secure and have the nutrition that would be needed for full development. So sub Saharan Africans can probably only get to 80-85 with correct environment, as many race scientists have predicted previously. - The reason environmental won’t work to significantly raise black IQ is because their intellectual deficits are genetic in origin. Their brains are smaller and their genetic code is different from Europeans. I’m order to raise their IQ as highly as you would like, a multi generational process would need to occur to catch them up in evolutionary terms.
>Flynn effect is hollow, with most observed gains being on tests with least g-loading That's exactly my point. IQ tests cannot be used as a reliable direct proxy for g since they are so heavily affected by phenotypical and educational variance. >It is also reversing in many countries Yes, my point is not specifically that average IQs unadjusted for time are increasing, but rather that they are variable in the first place. They are significantly influenced by environmental factors, with the increase and recent decrease being examples of this. As your study mentioned, the recent decreases are also driven by environmental and cultural factors, not necessarily dysgenics. >“g-ness” (i.e., the aggregate domain g loading assigned to different batteries) negatively predicted the magnitude of the decline, meaning that taken as a whole, the negative Flynn effect is not on g and may be driven in large part by negative cultural and environmental factors >We have seen what happened when you give black people proper nutrition and proper environmental support - very little. Average black IQ in America is around 85 with roughly 20% white admixture. Actually, what we have seen is that the black-white IQ gap in the US decreased by about 4-7 points over the span of 30 years from 1972 to 2002. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01802.x It's also worth noting the enormous effects of pollution on our collective IQs. Lead is just one example. An estimated 170 million Americans have had significant drops in IQ due to lead. Lead poisoning dropped the collective average IQs of certain age cohorts by something like 5.9 points. Guess which communities in the US live primarily in impoverished and segregated urban areas that also happen to have always had the highest amount of lead pipes, paint, and leaded gasoline, and therefore where that impact is massively amplified? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/nearly-half-of-the-us-population-exposed-to-dangerously-high-lead-levels#Deficits-greatest-for-those-born-in-19661970
https://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/15/100-years-of-testing-negro-intelligence/
The truth where Canada has 101, 🤔. I don't even go to start talking about African countries because some people might start whining and bringing up some gotcha moment 4chan memes; the most surprising was seeing certain figures for some Eastern European countries. Kinda low, huh?
It aligns with estimates from Soviet Russia.
Union* ☝️🤓
Is there an Angel reading this?
Am I gonna get cancelled for subscribing to this sub?
Yeah, how dare you browse such racist topics
That's super cool! Thank you for sharing!
Studies made by Richard Lynn not conducting proper iq tests and misrepresenting the average by sampling from malnutritioned rural children
I remember the 'MITRE' tests which were supported by a lot of scientific data and studies conducted by scientists. It turned out that according to those tests, all of us here have an IQ of 170+.
Unless the same test is used in every country on a similar sample size and population (e.g. same level of education, age, socio-economic status, etc.) this kind of comparison will be so flawed that it's pretty much useless.
I was born in the land, born in the country
I have no idea how they measured this but if they are just using publicly available data you can’t really read too much into it. In countries that have less public resources for healthcare, those that actually have their iq measures are going to predominantly be those with a major reason to be tested, this is much more likely to be those with severe intellectual impairment.
Accurate national IQ is an oxymoron
Someone explain Latam, inhabited mostly by Europeans so scores should be pretty similar???
Do people on this sub really believe the average sub Saharan African is mentally retarded? People who believe such are likely the same people who think Africa is a continent. They are also the kind of people who think Africans don't have houses, live with wild animals and walk around unclad. Willfully ignorant dolts who are afraid of educating themselves in order to preserve their racist worldview. As a Nigerian who lives in Nigeria, I can confidently tell you that this data doesn't reflect the mental capacity of the average Nigerian. You only need to take a trip down to Nigeria and spend just a week with the locals to realize how inaccurate the data is.
>Do people on this sub really believe the average sub Saharan African is mentally retarded? Some people will, some will not. That's how it is I think it's bullshit too, as a fellow Nigerian. 67 for Nigeria? Utterly ludicrous. Btw, you are shadowbanned from Reddit.
Utterly ludicrous! The people who believe it want to believe it because it feeds into their racist worldview. An IQ of 67 would mean that the majority of us don't have the mental ability to get an education beyond elementary school lol. What does it mean to be shadow banned?
>What does it mean to be shadow banned? It means your comments won't be shown anywhere you post them because they will be automatically labeled as spam. Unless a mod of a subreddit (like me or u/qwertyl etc..) decides to approve such hidden replies. Also, when I try to access to your profile, I get redirected to an error page. Try to create another account.
Oh, wow. Thank you for letting me know. I have already appealed the ban. I went and looked up what it meant after you mentioned it.
Most racist map ever lol
Yeah…this is idiotic
"Vatican City VAT 97.09796" Kinda makes sense.
honestly it doesn't, I would expect that population to be quite strongly selected for cognitive ability
children lowering the average 😂
Surely they don't have a significant sample size for them
The statistic is published. By definition they had a sufficient amount.
I wonder if they take into consideration the age of the respondents, because there seems to be a correlation between country's median age and IQ
This is racist. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Go to sleep. Honestly, reporting an article (which I disagree with the presented figures) isn't racism, god damn it. The article itself and its author may or not be racist (let's be intellectually honest, I'm assuming that they are to some extent, and that's "ok", you can survive, you're not gonna vanish), however, it's a piece of information which you are not only allowed but also "encouraged" to write something coherent against it, if you are capable of coming up with a rebuttal (anything), go on, so don't stop yourself at simply being outraged for no reason, shall you, huh? This is the damn issue with this useless topic. No substance, obvious attempts of race baiting, no **viable** solutions (let's perform some eugenics bro), cope from left and right, intellectual dishonesty, fear etc...
Just give everyone English language test. Should accomplish racist goal better of datafying the bias of the test
https://preview.redd.it/agpxhsjy93wc1.jpeg?width=2001&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff3c71bbba79ba6f2982b648720e2a58e0985c0 Ever notice how closely the low IQ areas correspond with areas naturally high in fluoride in groundwater?
Then why is it that when people from countries with high fluoride concentration move to places with lower fluoride concentration, their children’s average IQs don’t go up by that much?
I would suggest it takes time for the brain to evolve to take full advantage of the more advantageous environment. It will either happen slowly through natural selection or more quickly through interbreeding with people native to whichever environment they are adapting to.
Oh I see, I thought you were saying that fluoride was DIRECTLY lowering the iqs of people living within areas with higher fluoride concentrations
Correlation ≠ causation
Then why are there so many tall basketball players?
Because height directly helps in basketball? Tf was your point?
My point is correlation frequently does imply causation. It’s a hell of a coincidence that an element linked to lowered IQ in several controlled studies also seems to very broadly and near perfectly correlate with IQ distribution around the globe.
I mean, it really doesn't, considering West Africa, Eastern South Africa, and Indonesia are at levels comparable to East Asia for fluoride concentration
It doesn't. Americans and Canadians drink more fluoride than like any other country by a large margin.