Super-duper selection

According to a number of commenters, Black African immigrants, who’s offspring score only about 0.5 SD below the native US and UK White means, are super-duper selected. And this “super-duper” selection accounts, in part, for the relatively small gaps. It must because from a hereditarian perspective environmental factors, especially factors that vary between families, are feeble; therefore, as hereditarians argue, they are implausible explanations both for large differences and for the lack thereof. (See here for a detailed discussion of this.) To quote Jensen (1973) on this: “The proportion of variance indicated by [environmentality], if small, does in fact mean that the source of environmental variance are skimpy under the conditions that prevailed in the population in which h^2 was estimated. It means the already existing variations in environmental conditions are not a potent source of phenotypic variance, so that making the best variations available to everyone will do little to reduce individual differences.”

Now, no super-duper selection proponent has been willing to specify a percentile. So let’s ask again — what percentile of the African cognitive distribution do we think Black African immigrants to the US and UK represent? So, for example, what percentile of the cognitive distribution do we think Somalian refugees to the UK represent? (If you’re interested in immigrant educational status by nationality, you can refer to Docquier and Marfouk (2005).)

No Place for “super-duper” selection in a rational race realist debate:


Richwine (2011). No Place for a “Diversity Lottery” in a Rational Immigration Policy. The Heritage Foundation, July 28, 2011. http://origin.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/diversity-lottery-visa-program-no-place-in-a-rational-immigration-policyccord

About these ads

17 thoughts on “Super-duper selection

  1. The African parents of the British born African teens you’re researching are probably close to the 97%ile of black africa’s cognitive bell curve. They’re not all refugees.

  2. Chuck, the correlation between IQ and education is 0.6 in the West. The correlation between IQ and occupational status is 0.7. in the West. Now only about one in a 1000 men born in sub-Sahara get occupations so desirable they are located in the most elite first-world countries (U.S. and U.K.) (I’m ignoring sub-Saharan women because they largely just come with their husbands rather than were directly selected). So one would could argue that sub-Saharan men who land jobs in the West are about 3 SD above the sub-Sahara’s mean in occupational status. This would select for an IQ of 3 SD (0.7) = 2.1 SD above the mean IQ of black Africa. The correlation between a man’s IQ and his offspring’s IQ is 0.44 so African men who are 2.1 SD above Africa’s mean IQ should have kids who are 0.92 SD above Africa’s mean IQ. Now if those kids were born in sub-Sahara where the mean IQ is 67, they would have an IQ of 67 +0.92(15) = 81. However because first world nutrition adds 13 IQ points to third world IQ (according to Richard Lynn) they should have an IQ around 94.

    • One problem that I have with this is that East Asians are also educationally super-duper selected. See here, again: http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-12-09-at-1-47-41-pm.png and see: Docquier, F., & Marfouk, A. (2005). International Migration by Educational Attainment (1990- 2000) Release 1.1., update of World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3381 (Washington, DC: World Bank). Table A.2.2 http://perso.uclouvain.be/frederic.docquier/filePDF/DM_ozdenschiff.pdf

      So, by your logic, East Asians should be off the charts in IQ; yet they aren’t. How so?

      • Your first link didn’t tell me anything and the second link didn’t work. How are East Asian immigrants to the West super-duper selected? If anything coming to the West is a step-down for East Asians as China is where the future is and increasingly the best and brightest Chinese are staying in China or coming to America only for school and then returning to China.

      • Actually your first link does tell me something. It shows that only 3% of blacks in Africa are skilled. Now compare this to a chart you posted in a previous thread showing that only 16% of sub-Saharan British immigrants have “no qualifications”. If we equate skilled with qualifications, this suggests that the 97%ile of black Africa is occupationally equivalent to the bottom 16%ile of Black British immigrants which implies that blacks who migrates from Africa to Britain are 2.9 SD above Black Africa in occupational status. Since occupational status correlates 0.7 with IQ, they are 2.9(0.7) = 2.03 SD above black Africa in IQ, and their kids are 2.03(0.6) = 1.22 SD above black Africa’s IQ of 67 which makes those kids IQ 85. Add the 13 IQ point nutrition boost of being born in the first world and they should have IQ’s around 98.

        Now the only mystery about your first link is the stat that only 6% of East Asia is skilled, which sounds way too low. My guess is whoever made the chart doesn’t know the difference between East Asia and Southeast Asia.

      • Catperson,

        It was a nice theory and all…but I just went through “Table A.2-2. Stock of emigrants by destination and by educational attainment in 2000″ in my second link, which does work, and found that education is slightly NEGATIVELY correlated with African migrant status to the EU15 (i.e., more immigrants are from Low educational backgrounds than high). The paper is “International Migration by Educational Attainment (1990- 2000) Release 1.1″ so you can just google scholar it. Before you reply, consider that, in the same data, education is highly POSITIVELY correlated with African migrant status to the US. So… following your logic African immigrants to the US should have much higher IQs than African immigrants to the EU15. And yet they don’t.

        See that’s the problem with just so stories –

        • “Actually your first link does tell me something. It shows that only 3% of blacks in Africa are skilled. Now compare this to a chart you posted in a previous thread showing that only 16% of sub-Saharan British immigrants have “no qualifications”. If we equate skilled with qualifications, this suggests that the 97%ile of black Africa is occupationally equivalent to the bottom 16%ile of Black British immigrants which implies that blacks who migrates from Africa to Britain are 2.9 SD above Black Africa in occupational status. Since occupational status correlates 0.7 with IQ, they are 2.9(0.7) = 2.03 SD above black Africa in IQ, and their kids are 2.03(0.6) = 1.22 SD above black Africa’s IQ of 67 which makes those kids IQ 85. Add the 13 IQ point nutrition boost of being born in the first world and they should have IQ’s around 98.”

          So the relevant comparison would be between the 3% skilled (i.e., college educated, as defined in the reference) in Africa and the 40% skilled migrants to the UK or between the 97% unskilled in Africa and the 60% unskilled migrants to the UK. Either way is the same. One way to do this comparison is just to convert the percentages into standard deviations and find the difference. So using excel we get =NORMSINV(0.97)-NORMSINV(0.6) or =NORMSINV(0.03)-NORMSINV(0.4) and a standardized difference of 1.63. Right?

          Now, as you say, in the West, the correlation between education and g is 0.6. Assuming this to be the case in Africa, we get a African non-migrant to African migrant difference of 0.98 SD. (Which was within the range of what I have been suggesting — i.e., an upper limit of g selection of 1.1 SD.) The kids then are 0.6 of this, so .98 x .6 above the population genotypic mean or 0.59 SD above. So if the Kids are now 0.5 SD below the White mean then, at most, the Black African mean is 0.5 + 0.59 SD below the White mean. There’e nothing new here.

          As I pointed out, though, this is the very upper limit. The methodology of calculating the Standardized difference probably exaggerates the difference. And only a super-duper racist would argue that the current 2nd gen UK-Black UK-White difference is fully genetic.

          How about this: 40% of African immigrants to the UK are college educated. Since the college educated Black IQ is 100 (according to Lynn and Rushton), we’ll assign this group and IQ of 100. 44% are high school educated. Lynn (2010) gives estimates of the Black high school IQ:

          “The magnitude of the inflation of IQs calculated from TIMSS studies of secondary school students can be estimated from two studies. Ferron (1965) administered the Leone test “devised by an African for African children” to two primary school samples (average IQ 70) and a selected secondary school sample (IQ 81) in Zaria (Nigeria), suggesting that the secondary school sample inflates the African IQ by 11 IQ points. Heady (2003) found in samples of 12–18 year olds in Ghana that those in school had an IQ 2 points higher than those not in school. The average of the two results is a 6.5 advantage for those in secondary school. The adoption of this figure reduces the sub-Saharan African IQ estimated from TIMSS studies from 72.4 to 65.9, rounded to 66. (The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: Comments on Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas)

          It’s 6.5 points higher than those not in high school. In “The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans assessed by the Progressive Matrices,” Lynn argues that Africans are 3 points higher in IQ per year of education. So, we might assume that high school graduates would be 6 points higher than high school attendants, since, on average, graduates would have two more years of schooling that attendants, given 4 years of high school schooling. So, since lynn argues that the mean African IQ is 70, we might estimate the high school graduate IQ is somewhere around 83 (70 + 6 + 6.5), or about half way between the African mean and the college graduate IQ. (Since the African mean includes high school graduates, we would have to adjust accordingly.)

          So we would have about 40% x 100 + 44% x 83 + 16% x 70 or 87.2, which is about 1 SD above Lynn’s mean estimate. But no one really believes that the African phenotypic g is 70. It’s probably at least 80. So we really only probably have a selection of 0.5 SD. (Assuming the downward bias affects uneducated Africans and not highly educated ones.) The kids then are 0.6 of this. Or 0.3 SD selected; this puts the absolute ceiling of the race difference at 0.3 + 0.5 SD. And no one seriously argues that the whole UK 2nd gen Black-White gap is due to genes. Just think how bad this would make the Black kids feel. So maybe at very most, 1/2 is. So you have a .3 + .25 SD gap.

          If we put this in terms of an analysis of variance only 7% of the geneotypic IQ variance would be between Blacks and Whites, while 93% of the variance would be within races. (Assuming within population variance of 225,(((0.55*15)/2)^2)/225 =.0756 =.07/.93.) So, we can basically conclude that there is no difference, confirming my original position — unless you squint really really hard. And why would anyone want to do that?

      • Catperson,
        It was a nice theory and all…but I just went through “Table A.2-2. Stock of emigrants by destination and by educational attainment in 2000″ in my second link, which does work, and found that education is slightly NEGATIVELY correlated with African migrant status to the EU15 (i.e., more immigrants are from Low educational backgrounds than high).

        There might be more low education immigrants than high, but high education immigrants are DRAMATICALLY overrepresented among the immigrants from sub-sahara relative to their home countries. Further the EU15 is probably too broad a category when the country of interest is the U.K. only.

        Before you reply, consider that, in the same data, education is highly POSITIVELY correlated with African migrant status to the US. So… following your logic African immigrants to the US should have much higher IQs than African immigrants to the EU15. And yet they don’t.

        Not so fast. According to “The Global Bell Curve” about 25% of sub-Saharan immigrants to the U.K. have university degrees as of 2001. As of 2000, 44% of African immigrants to the U.S. had a college degree:

        http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/black-immigrant-model-minorities/

        That’s only a 0.56 SD difference in education between these two groups, and since education only correlates 0.6 with IQ, that would make the African immigrants in the U.S. only about a third of an SD smarter than the ones in the U.K. It might be hard to identify such a small difference with any kind of statistical certainty, especially after their kids regress to the mean cutting the difference further.

    • So the relevant comparison would be between the 3% skilled (i.e., college educated, as defined in the reference) in Africa and the 40% skilled migrants to the UK or between the 97% unskilled in Africa and the 60% unskilled migrants to the UK. Either way is the same. One way to do this comparison is just to convert the percentages into standard deviations and find the difference. So using excel we get =NORMSINV(0.97)-NORMSINV(0.6) or =NORMSINV(0.03)-NORMSINV(0.4) and a standardized difference of 1.63. Right?

      Now, as you say, in the West, the correlation between education and g is 0.6. Assuming this to be the case in Africa, we get a African non-migrant to African migrant difference of 0.98 SD. (Which was within the range of what I have been suggesting — i.e., an upper limit of g selection of 1.1 SD.) The kids then are 0.6 of this, so .98 x .6 above the population genotypic mean or 0.59 SD above. So if the Kids are now 0.5 SD below the White mean then, at most, the Black African mean is 0.5 + 0.59 SD below the White mean. There’e nothing new here.

      That’s a reasonable approach. 0.5 + 0.59 SD below the white mean is an IQ of 84. This is similar to Richard’s Lynn estimate of black Africa’s genotypic IQ which was 80. The true number is probably somewhere in between your estimate and Lynn’s. I still think you’re underestimating how selected African immigrants are, as they’re not only far more educated than non-migrants, but richer and more professionally successful too.

      And only a super-duper racist would argue that the current 2nd gen UK-Black UK-White difference is fully genetic.

      Why would one have to be racist to make this assertion? Unless there’s evidence that 2nd generation Blacks are malnourished (are they short?) or have some language barrier that makes the tests culturally biased, there’s little reason to suspect non-genetic factors.

      But no one really believes that the African phenotypic g is 70. It’s probably at least 80.

      Lynn argues that if black Africans were reared with first world nutrition they would average IQ 80 because this is the average IQ of dark skinned African Americans. However the IQ’s of black Africans raised in Africa is only 67 because their biological development is substantially stunted by malnutrition (which also explains why blacks in Africa are shorter than African Americans). The roughly 1 SD gap (in both IQ and height) between dark-skinned African Americans and their genetic counterparts in malnourished Africa is analogous to the roughly 1 SD gap (in both IQ and height) between whites today and whites in the early 20th century (the Flynn Effect).

  3. Ted Kennedy’s Diversity Lottery is, what, 55,000 per year? It’s a really, really stupid program, but it’s hardly the only source of immigration. And even that is only open to high school graduates (although who knows how much cheating there is on that).

  4. “Further the EU15 is probably too broad a category when the country of interest is the U.K. only.”

    So we should be able to find some unfortunate EU15 countries, right? (Unfortunate, in terms of the immigrant stock that they’re getting.) Have any ideas? I was hoping I would get someone to look for African immigrant IQ data. Instead, it’s just, just so stories — which are interesting, but which aren’t horribly compelling.

    • No. Purposely. The post was silly. But the ensuing discussion interesting. So backdating it seemed to be the easiest way to both get rid of it and retain it.

comments do not require an email

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s