Richard Lynn, Fearless Champion of Truth

I'm posting this here for the edification of the anonymous dimwits who serve as cheerleaders for "Godlesscapitalist." It's almost certain that I'm wasting my time, however, as their innate intellectual limitations are such that it's likely that only when exciting new genetic techniques have been invented can these ignoramuses be transformed into productive citizens ... Anyways, here's some interesting information about that other pillar of rectitude in the poor persecuted field of "human biodiversity": let the quibbling commence!

The main source for the Bell Curve’s claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the “best studies” on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the “best” was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study’s author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was “not at all” evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.

Another of the “definitive” studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to “prove” such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.

As for the East Asian IQ superiority, this “evidence” was as weak and uncompelling as that regarding African IQ’s. The data on this issue in the Bell Curve relies heavily on a Lynn article from 1982 in Nature magazine, in which he claimed the Japanese have a 10-point IQ advantage over European whites. In 1983, Lynn’s piece was dissected completely in the pages of Nature by two American psychologists who noted that Lynn’s study sample was made up of Japanese kids from well-off urban parents, likely to have higher IQ’s than the more mixed group of Europeans against which they were compared. Murray and Herrnstein only make mention of the Nature rebuttal to Lynn in a footnote, and even there, refuse to discuss its contents.

Two other studies cited by Lynn to “prove” higher Asian IQ’s are equally bogus. The first used samples of American, British and Japanese students on a test of abstract reasoning. On this test the Brits and Americans did far worse; and the second study found that 9-year-olds in the UK did worse on the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices than 9-year-olds from Japan and Hong Kong. But if you check the footnotes for this “evidence,” you find that the author Lynn was citing for both of these studies was himself. And if you look up the studies, it doesn’t take long to notice the flawed methodology involved in both: The first of these studies consisted of a test given to 178 Japanese children that did not reflect the demographic makeup of the nation as a whole, economically, culturally, or in terms of gender. The testers showed up at two schools, one urban and one rural, and gave the tests to whomever was present that day. Lynn then took the results of this test and compared it to a test that was thirteen years old, had been given to 64,000 American children, and had been pre-screened for representativeness; he then compared the Japanese results to a similarly pre-screened sample of 10,000 British children who had been given a similar test in the previous decade.

In the second study, Lynn claims to have found a substantial difference between Japanese and Hong Kong student IQ’s on the one hand, and those of British children on the other. Yet this study looked only at 118 9-year olds from Hong Kong, 444 children from Japan and 239 British children, and involved no known controls for environmental and demographic representativeness.

The third set of studies cited in the Bell Curve dealing with Asian IQ, comes from Harold Stevenson in Minnesota, who found that once socioeconomic status and various demographic variables were controlled for there was NO difference at all between the IQ’s of Japanese, Taiwanese and American kids. Despite the fact that these studies were the most comprehensive and methodologically sound of all the studies cited on the subject in the Bell Curve, (even according to the authors themselves who noted that Stevenson “carefully matched the children on socioeconomic and demographic variables”), Murray and Herrnstein essentially dismiss them as quickly as they mention them, noting only that they are evidence of the “ongoing debate” about race and IQ, as if they are on a scientific par with the work of folks like Lynn.

Finally, in the section on “immigrant IQ,” meaning, to the authors, the IQ of mostly Latino immigrants to the U.S., Murray and Herrnstein claim that the mean Latino IQ is 91—about 9 points below whites, 14 points below Asians and 7 points above blacks—but provide absolutely no source for this claim whatsoever. And of course, there is no meaningful racial category known as “Latino” anyway, as the term refers to an ethnic/national/regional heritage group within which skin color and racial phenotype varies dramatically. The evidence from Lynn that they provide on “immigrant” IQ’s, which they claim indicates an IQ in the 90-95 range, takes no account of the fact that 11% of all immigrants in the period they studied were South Asian and Middle Eastern, not Latino, and many more were East Asian—the very group they have claimed to be intellectually superior.

From a ZNET article by Tim Wise.

I expect that the usual suspects will soon be along to either put up the red herring of "Lewontin's fallacy" or attack the source of the quotes above (which is both illogical and ironic, in light of the shady associations of the sources they themselves are willing to rely on); but what is at issue here isn't whether or not Lewontin said something or other, or even whether race is a meaningful concept or not, but whether the allegations detailed above by Wise are true, and the brutal fact is that they seem to check out. I myself was aware of the sleight of hand with the South Africa data from a different source, and I've also provided in the past references to studies showing how worthless Lynn's sampling methodology in East Asia was. Those inclined to do the foot-work are welcome to confirm for themselves whether or not the criticisms detailed above are valid: it shouldn't be hard for anyone with access to a university library.

Come on, "Godlesscapitalist", your cheerleaders may be morons, but are you intent on proving yourself one too? Why not show that you have a finer appreciation of the subtleties of statistical sampling than these bozos? Don't you care at all for your reputation in the eyes of those who actually know a thing or two? Address the criticisms laid out here against both Lynn and Rushton: don't resort to red herrings or nit-picking, but face the arguments head on - if you can ...

POSTSCRIPT: As I expected, nothing but illogical cavilling from clueless idiots. I'm tired of having to listen to morons too scared to sign their own names to their posts, so I'm shutting comments on this post down. Anyone with something worthwhile to say is welcome to do so via trackback.

Comments

[arcane]

I cannot believe that you cited an article, which has absolutely no sources for their claims, from ZNet. ZNet is a hard-left website and a proud member of the "race doesn't exist" and "Stephen Jay Gould is the greatest biologist ever" crowd.

And that article mentions "cultural bias" over and over again. The idea that various standardized tests, or even IQ tests, are culturally biased has been debunked. I remember reading just a few weeks ago about how they modified the SAT to have a more "Mexican" cultural orientation and (behold!) the Hispanic students did worse on it that on the normal SAT test. Also, Thomas Sowell, a black man, has written about "cultural bias" extensively.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2177

[Abiola Lapite]

"I cannot believe that you cited an article, which has absolutely no sources for their claims, from ZNet. ZNet is a hard-left website and a proud member of the "race doesn't exist" and "Stephen Jay Gould is the greatest biologist ever" crowd."

You don't waste any time, do you? It was precisely in anticipation of this sort of illogic that I wrote the following:
I expect that the usual suspects will soon be along to either put up the red herring of "Lewontin's fallacy" or attack the source of the quotes above (which is both illogical and ironic, in light of the shady associations of the sources they themselves are willing to rely on);Way to go to prove me right ...

[arcane]

Here's something stunning for those of you who think the SAT is racist, doesn't matter, and doesn't accurately predict a student's performance in school.

"At the flagship University of Colorado campus at Boulder, where the average SAT score of black students was more than 200 points lower than that of white students, only 39 percent of the black students graduated, compared to 72 percent of the whites.

At the University of Colorado at Denver, however, where the difference in SAT scores was only 30 points, half of all black students and 48 percent of all white students graduated within a six-year span. Where there were negligible differences in qualifications, there were negligible differences in results."

That's from another Sowell article.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030109.shtml

[arcane]

I expect that the usual suspects will soon be along to either put up the red herring of "Lewontin's fallacy" or attack the source of the quotes above (which is both illogical and ironic, in light of the shady associations of the sources they themselves are willing to rely on)

It is unfair and hypocritical for you to cite an article that repeatedly attacks sources while saying that your sources are unquestionable.

[Abiola Lapite]

A quick lesson in reasoning, "Arcane":

1 - the source of an argument has absolutely no bearing on its validity, so save that nonsense for someone else.

2 - The arguments outlined above concern Richard Lynn's own sources: as such, to criticize them for not providing any sources is an absurdity, unless you're ready to concede that Richard Lynn has no valid sources of his own. In plain English - one doesn't need any sources to point out that someone else has misused his own!

[arcane]

1 - the source of an argument has absolutely no bearing on its validity, so save that nonsense for someone else.

WHAT!? So any source is legitimate?

2 - The arguments outlined above concern Richard Lynn's own sources: as such, to criticize them for not providing any sources is an absurdity, unless you're ready to concede that Richard Lynn has no valid sources of his own. In plain English - one doesn't need any sources to point out that someone else has misused his own!

I will not concede that, and I am still waiting for you to answer questions over at Gene Expression where you have called us names and refused to state why and how we are those things. Again, it is hypocritical for you to cite that article, which repeatedly attacks source material, and then saying that anyone who attacks the actual source of that article, and the material in it, doesn't matter.

And tell me, what college did you go to where they taught you that sources don't matter? If sources don't matter, then why are you so eager to attack Lynn's sources?

BTW, I would go get Lynn's book, since I don't actually own a copy, although I have read parts of it, but due to the hurricane, the library is shut down.

[Anonymous Coward]

[crap removed]

[Arcane Coward]

[More crap]

[Abiola: "Arcane", you're a moron too, but at least you give what *appears* to be a valid email address. I have more patience with people who show some willingness to put their mouths behind their words, even if they're idiots].

[Abiola Lapite]

"while saying that your sources are unquestionable."

This is amateur hour stuff: where have I said any such thing? Is the only way you know how to "question" a source to engage in the "X is a PC Marxist" line of ad-hominem argument? If it were that easy, all I'd have to do to dismiss the likes of Lynn and Co. would be to link to their political rantings, but it isn't.

I suggest you either raise your game or leave the argumentation to the big boys, 'cause you sure aren't cutting an impressive figure right now. Mr. Wise accuses Lynn of misusing some statistics and shoddily collecting others, and all the necessary references are within Lynn's own work: all you have to do is read Lynn's writings, look up his references, and compare his analysis of them to what's been alleged here, finish. This really isn't rocket science, believe it or not.

"Again, it is hypocritical for you to cite that article, which repeatedly attacks source material, and then saying that anyone who attacks the actual source of that article, and the material in it, doesn't matter."

Uh? Either English isn't your first language, or logic is far from being your forte; this is simply embarrassing.

"And tell me, what college did you go to where they taught you that sources don't matter?"

Another non-sequitur. While we're at it, I'm more than willing to compare my CV with yours any day of the week, hombre. Of course you'd have to give up your anonymity, but hey, small price to pay for showing me who's boss, right?

[arcane]

This is amateur hour stuff: where have I said any such thing? Is the only way you know how to "question" a source to engage in the "X is a PC Marxist" line of ad-hominem argument? If it were that easy, all I'd have to do to dismiss the likes of Lynn and Co. would be to link to their political rantings, but it isn't.

In fact, you engage in that line often! Here is what you have said about Gene Expression: "Heritability, Lies and Stupidity falsehoods...anti-immigration nuts...many nonsensical...paraded by ignorant charlatans...a liar or an idiot...those who love to rant about heritability...ignorant cranks...veneer of scientific plausibility...perpetuated by racist cranks who like to fulminate about the evils of immigration...idiotic reasoning of the anti-immigration shitheads..the uninformed charlatan...bug up their ass about nonwhite immigration cannot be trusted ever...anti-immigration nuts...falsehoods and illogicalities...race/IQ fanatics...mendacity or their stupidity...worthless Nazi scum...the severe intellectual limitations they themselves have displayed."

And you say you're not a hypocrite?

I suggest you either raise your game or leave the argumentation to the big boys, 'cause you sure aren't cutting an impressive figure right now. Mr. Wise accuses Lynn of misusing some statistics and shoddily collecting others, and all the necessary references are within Lynn's own work: all you have to do is read Lynn's writings, look up his references, and compare his analysis of them to what's been alleged here, finish. This really isn't rocket science, believe it or not.

You are still doing nothing but conducting ad-hominem attacks on me, and have not responded to that statement I posted from Thomas Sowell. I'm waiting, and there's some questions for you over at GNXP, too.

Uh? Either English isn't your first language, or logic is far from being your forte; this is simply embarrassing.

More ad-hominem attacks, or do you just not have a clue what I'm talking about?

Another non-sequitur. While we're at it, I'm more than willing to compare my CV with yours any day of the week, hombre. Of course you'd have to give up your anonymity, but hey, small price to pay for showing me who's boss, right?

I'm waiting.

[arcane]

Uh? Either English isn't your first language, or logic is far from being your forte; this is simply embarrassing.

OMG, I'm appalled. You're resorting to the exact same cultural biases that supposedly make the SAT irrelevant!

[Abiola Lapite]

"And you say you're not a hypocrite?"

I didn't say I was polite to racist morons. I'd be a hypocrite if that was the substance of my argument, but it isn't.

"You are still doing nothing but conducting ad-hominem attacks on me"

Oy gevalt! This is hopeless.

"I'm waiting."

Sure. You could begin by signing your actual name, so we can confirm you're who you say you are, instead of some coward with an overly inventive imagination. It would be nice to have some meaningful basis for comparison other than, say, your claim to be the Emperor of Brazil.

You know what? Keep on plugging away, your posts will make an invaluable record to show the world the sorts of geniuses "Godlesscapitalist" has surrounded himself with. I'm off to dinner ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the source of an argument has absolutely no bearing on its validity, so save that nonsense for someone else.

With a statement like that - who's the moron?

[Abiola Lapite]

Why, you are, of course! No need to thank me, just doing my bit to help the retards of the world ...

[arcane]

Since you know so much about me, tell me what I have said that makes me a racist.

Also, I am still waiting for your response to the Sowell articles that I have posted in this little comments section of yours that you use to smear your opponents instead of actually debating.

[arcane]

Arcane Coward,

First of all, who are you? Second of all, why are you attacking me? And finally, if you're not going to participate in the debate, don't post.

[arcane]

A set of questions from Gene Expression, for you to answer. Also, I'm still waiting for your response to such people as Thomas Sowell that I have mentioned in this thread.

By the way, this is in fact an accurate description of you guys, as your ignorance of the African "tribes" you're busy denigrating is truly awe-inspiring. If anyone's doing the defecating, it's you lot, on 600 million people you think congenitally intellectually inferior.

Ok, first of all, I'd like you to define and classify exactly what the African "tribes" are if they are not "tribes," please. Are they collective production units? Symbiotic human organizational structures? Marxist think tanks?

Also, please answer the following questions with examples:

1. Since when has GNXP been a bunch of "anti-immigration nuts"?
2. Since when has GNXP been "worthless Nazi scum"? Define Nazi.
3. Since when has GNXP had a "bug up their ass about nonwhite immigration cannot be trusted ever"?
4. Since when has "those who love to rant about heritability" become "ignorant cranks"?
5. What credentials are necessary for a person who disagrees with you to not be considered an "uninformed charlatan"?

[PZ Myers]

You're a braver man than I am, Abiola. As you've noted, taking on the bogus gunk pumped out by Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein is a recipe for drawing out the race fanatics.

I'd be interested in seeing one of them actually address Lynn's shoddy methodology, but again as you've predicted, they haven't even tried.

[Frank McGahon]

Sheesh!

Baby steps in logic for the soi-disant "cognitive elite": Let us say there is an individual called Tom who is widely acknowledged to be untrustworthy. Now there are two types of bits of information Tom can give you.

1) He can point you to something you are in a position to verify, such as "The Sky is blue" or "If you look in that box over there you will find an apple"..

or

2) He can tell you something which you cannot easily verify and must take on trust such as "This afternoon's horse race is fixed and the winner will be Mystic Wind, I suggest a bet"

Now, you're probably not going to take Tom's word for it and waste your money on the bet but Tom's shiftiness doesn't negate the truth of the sky being blue or the easy-to-determine presence of the apple.

It really shouldn't be too difficult to see that the credibility of sources is only an issue for information of type 2. If you present an argument based on easily accessible material, it really doesn't matter where it came from if it checks out. On the other hand if you present a "theory" and claim to have the "data" to back it up, the source for that data is crucial.

As for culturally appropriate testing, I'm astonished at the ignorance on display here. You guys are so used to bashing straw men that you see them everywhere. The reference to culturally biased testing here has nothing to do with explaining American SAT scores but rather the absurdity of inferring intelligence or lack thereof by asking a question which requires prior knowledge of a sport like Tennis which was alien to the testees. If I asked arcane or any of the other cheerleaders a question based on the lineup of Gaelic Football players and they flunked it, would it tell me anything useful about their intelligence?

[arcane]

PZ Myers,

I would do that, but as I said, I do not have access to a copy of Lynn's book at the moment, nor do I have the time to read it at the moment. I'll keep the idea on my mind and will do a posting about it over at Gene Expression sometime in the future (not the near future). However, you stated that:

You're a braver man than I am, Abiola. As you've noted, taking on the bogus gunk pumped out by Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein is a recipe for drawing out the race fanatics.

Define "race fanatic". Who qualifies as a "race fanatic"? When will you encourage Abiola to respond to the statements I have already made (or is it that Abiola is the only one allowed to criticize)?

If I asked arcane or any of the other cheerleaders a question based on the lineup of Gaelic Football players and they flunked it, would it tell me anything useful about their intelligence?

Tell me, what question in any of the tests asked people about their knowledge of such things? Also, you seem to accept the cultural argument. Since you do, can you tell me why on the tests that have been modified to eliminate those cultural biases, and instead insert biases about the culture they are supposedly more familiar with, that the members of that culture actually fare worse?

[lurking coward]

1 - the source of an argument has absolutely no bearing on its validity, so save that nonsense for someone else.

This may be true *logically*, but not practically. It is logically possible for a random document generator to come up with a coherent argument, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath about it actually doing so. Likewise, some people are either incompetent or complete ideological hacks, and frankly not worth large amounts of my time to debunk thouroughly--I don't have the time or patience to debunk every bit of nonsense out there, especially since some people can be nearly impossible to debunk on their supporters' terms (many creationists would fall into this category perfectly, for example).

As for Lynn, he is a known racialist, so even people on the h-bd realist side should not be surprised if his work is biased or especially flawed, and therefore easy to attack for Micheal Moore-caliber writers. I'm not too interested in defending Lynn or the African IQ data; even if the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is 70 by accurate measures, average IQ scores alone do not tell us how much, if any, of the deficit is caused by genetics vs. environment (or how much, if any, of the bad environment itself is genetically caused).

[Frank McGahon]

Tell me, what question in any of the tests asked people about their knowledge of such things?

Er, the one with the missing tennis net

Also, you seem to accept the cultural argument....

here we go again...

[arcane]

Keep dodging Frank. Keep on dodging.

And yes, I will admit, Lynn does indeed have racialist tendencies. But does Tatu Vanhanen? What about the London Times, which published an article ( http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=3&i=123513&t=123499 ) and a beautiful map ( http://www.vdare.com/images/IQ%20of%20Nations.gif) based on the work of the two?

[arcane]

Eh, I'm done here. It's been fun. Back to GNXP I go.

[lurking coward]

And yes, I will admit, Lynn does indeed have racialist tendencies. But does Tatu Vanhanen? What about the London Times, which published an article ( http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=3&i=123513&t=123499 ) and a beautiful map ( http://www.vdare.com/images/IQ%20of%20Nations.gif) based on the work of the two?

Hmmm...well, I don't think L&V's work is the strongest part of the h-bd argument, to say the least, and I am a strong believer in the importance of genetic differences between individuals, not just in intelligence, but also in many personality characteristics, including those important to life success. As stated by Richard Restak in Receptors: "This great variety [in brain tissue] is three to five times larger than that found in any other tissue. Such abundance suggests that more of the brain's functioning may result from genetic factors than has previously been considered likely. Not only intelligence but such personality factors as shyness, introversion, and susceptibility to certain forms of mental illness are turning out to be heavily influenced by genetics." I also believe that there are significant racial differences in intelligence and personality, as well as differences between the sexes (btw, anyone who thinks that women of my generation [born in the early to mid 1980s] face widespread discrimination in the U.S. needs serious help).

That said, it definately seems to me that there are some serious methodological issues with L&V's work, as well as questions about its relevance (how much does national or regional IQ tell us about the innate intelligence of various groups, given the huge range of environmental conditions in different countries?)