More evidence: UK math and reading achievement gaps

There is not a truth existing which I fear or wish unknown to the whole HBD community — Chuck

Statsquatch questioned my previous analysis:

The data in your graph is from two different studies and cohorts and is taken at different times. Are you sure this data is representative? I think the LSYPE uses the actual GCSE that the child took, obtaining them from the school. But we know that all children in England do not take the GCSE. If lower IQ kids at 5 are less likely to take the GCSE that could easily explain the closing of the gap over time.

His point was that I cobbling longitudinal studies together. Others questioned my GCSE data. For example, Matt argued:

GCSE gaps overall seem pretty awful as a general measure of cognitive ability, despite being great for universities, because it is quite possible to take a set of GCSEs in “Art and Design”, “Performing Arts”, “Music”, “Psychology”, “Hospitality”, “Health and Tourism” and “PE”(!).The core GCSEs are English, Maths and Science, which we’d guess have a respectable IQ loading, but the others may be less certain. Those set of GCSEs which have the same content (mathematics and english) as the SAT are probably a good substitute for the SAT (although less than perfect, because, yes, coursework).

Matt’s point was that GCSEs scores, per se, can be misleading and that we should look specifically at Math and Reading test scores, which show relatively high g-loadings. Refer to other points made here. In response — and in followup with a point made by Galtonian — I offer a more recent analysis which circumvents these criticisms. Below are Math and Reading standardized test differences, over the years 1998 to 2007, based on a large cohort (N = 469,848). The scores are relative to a white mean set to zero, with standard deviations of 10:

This confirms my previous conclusion: The Black-White Gaps are trivial to small (in effect size) and don’t increase with age. The data here disconfirms Lynn’s hypothesis. Defenders of this embattled hypothesis need to account for the absence of more than trivial to small gaps, given the large differences between social classes and, more importantly, given the substantial correlation (.7) found between g and these test scores. The Chinese sample, of course, suggests that more than g is involved in population differences — but before you dismiss these achievement scores refer yourself to Gottfredson’s Implications of Cognitive Differences for Schooling Within Diverse Societies, especially table 3 and page 28 to 30. I’m sure that this paper is quite familiar to many of you. In that regards, at very least you have to grant that the near absence of an achievement gap in the UK is as much evidence against a UK IQ gap as the presence of an achievement gap in the US is evidence for a US IQ gap. Hereditarians have routinely argued that the US achievement gap is evidence of an IQ gaps (for example, Rushton and Jensen 2010, section 4), so my evidence should be in good standing.

References

Dustmann et al., 2011. Ethnicity and Second Generation Immigrants, Chapter 15 in The Labour Market in Winter: the state of working Britain 2010, edited by Paul Gregg and Jonathan Wadsworth, Oxford University Press, 2011

About these ads

85 thoughts on “More evidence: UK math and reading achievement gaps

  1. 1) I don’t see Whites anywhere on these charts. So how can you say that they tell us something about the White-Black gap?

    2) You have been graciously sidestepping my criticism of your UK sources. You know, you are in the same unenviable position as the economists reporting on differences in agricultural yields between the Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War. Based on statistics of yields, any “experts” could see without a shadow of a doubt that any of the Communist countries were many times more productive than the US. You are expecting honesty from a country committed to the multiculturalist agenda, where people are actually jailed for voicing any negative thoughts against immigrants (see Emma West). It stands to reason that an honest professor still reporting race differences in IQ among 2nd generation immigrants would also quickly lose his job – or at least be portrayed as a lunatic racist – in such a dystopian society.

    3) I’ve examined this Dustmann fellow, and concluded that he is absolutely in line with the multiculturalist agenda rather than academic honesty: immigration is wonderful, it’s only those nasty White bigots who are too boneheaded not to see it. For example, take a look at this fine piece of propaganda from the guy: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/DustmannFabbriPreston2011.pdf

    He discusses the economic cost of the majority discriminating and being violent towards minorities – but not the other way around (despite the fact that, for example, all violent rapes in Oslo over a few of the past years were committed by Muslims – and I have seen no indication that the UK is much different). This clearly shows to me that the guy has an agenda and is not to be trusted. And just how credible are your other sources? I don’t have the time to investigate, but probably not much more. You know the expression: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”.

    Here is my challenge for you: find a study from pre-1990 South Africa or from Russia showing that Blacks and Whites are equal in IQ. Find a study from China proving that there are no genetic differences in IQ between Uyghurs and Chinese. That is, from countries which were or are not invested in the multiculturalist-universalist agenda. Then, and only then, will I begin to conclude that HBD with regards to intelligence might be false.

    Until then, I see no reason to believe that Murray’s data doesn’t apply to Blacks in Africa. In fact, scientific achievements of Africans before White colonization (or, rather, lack thereof) strongly suggest that in fact it does.

    • Nyk,

      (1) I expected you to read the paper. Silly of me. So I added: “The scores are relative to a white mean set to zero, with standard deviations of 10.”
      (2) Truther, Birther, IQer
      (3) I agree that almost everyone that I have cited is in agreement with the multicultural agenda. That doesn’t support your point. In the US, multicultists frequently document and discuss the gap. If it existed in the UK, I would expect the same. And I would expect them to use it, as they do in the US, to further their positions (via charges of racism). A gap, in short is not anathema to Multicultists, just a genetic influence to it.
      (4) Ok. Greg Cochran refused to accept my data, so you are in good company.
      (5) “Find a study from China proving that there are no genetic differences in IQ between Uyghurs and Chinese.” What does this have to do with the Black white gap? Chinese probably are genetically superior in IQ.

  2. This is weird. I don’t imagine that Chuck would make any obvious errors, but still no other HBD sites are talking about his most recent posts.

    • Well, I have’t been able to find the silver bullet yet. What I need is age 10-20 CAT scores. They’re out there. I just don’t have access to them.

    • The argument inevitably will be that since the Chinese score .4 (reading) to .8 (math) SD above Whites, these scores are not good indexes of g differences between populations, since, at most, Chinese are only .3 SD above Whites in g. (In principle, a test can correlated highly with g within populations and not highly with g between populations.)

      This is why I need the 10-20 CAT data. I already have age 3-7 data.

      • Chuck why do you say the Chinese are AT MOST 0.3 SD above whites in g? Chinese in SIngapore and Hong Kong score at 107-108, Chinese in the UK at age 11 have a CAT3 score of 107.5. Also, they’re GCSE scores are almost exactly what the CAT3 predicts. More evidence of the CAT3′s predictive power. You can use GCSE scores to estimate CAT3 scores, and hence g. I doubt they’d be out by more than 3 points.

        • I think my implicit logic was: The UK academic results, with regards to Blacks and South Asians, are really difficult to reconcile with a global hereditarian hypothesis. But if a hereditarian hypothesis is substantially false, then it should be so for Orientals too. So that means that the Oriental advantage is largely environmental and probably not a function of g. Which means that the Black/ South Asian lack of disadvantage could be environmental and not due to a lack of deficit in g…

          • I see, I won’t speculate on the cause of Chinese-white gap. My point was simply that the CAT3 at age 11 accurately predicts the Chinese GCSE performance. Btw I made a chart that lists the CAT3 scores and compares them with predicted and actual GCSE results, White Britsh, Roma and Irish Travellers also perform pretty much how you would expect, but there are big difference in South Asian and Black predicted and actual scores. I also included a comparison with Key Stage 2 scores at age 11, this time all the groups for which there is data perform pretty similarly to how they perform in the CAT3. Basically, Blacks and South Asians both improve relative to whites between the ages of 11 and 16, so I’d expect to see a similar improvement in their cognitive abilities between the ages of 11 and 16.

            • I got a correlation of 0.93 between CAT3 and Key Stage 2 scores, while I got a correlation of 0.87 between CAT3 and the GCSE measure of percentage attaining 5 good GCSEs including Maths and English, the latter correlation had a lot more groups in it though. I’ll do it again for the same ones I did for Key Stage 2.

              • Done, ok now the correlation has dropped to 0.68, obviously due to these groups improving a lot. This shows that CAT3 at age 11 probably underestimates cognitive ability at 16. Thus the CAT3 scores at age 11 can be regarded as a lower bound for these groups.

                • The problem that I’m having is that I continually see low cognitive ability scores for adult Blacks and South Asians. See here and here:
                  https://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/medical-school-uk-the-gap/
                  http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5396/

                  Either this is due to sampling error (more likely) or the GCSE results don’t well measure between group differences in g (less likely). (To determine this you need to do MGCF analysis.) While IQ g and GCSE achievement g, which are not identical, correlate at .81, the national level correlation between IQ g and math and reading is somewhat lower at 0.77 and 0.69 (Deary et al., 2007), so some room is left open for environmental influence. And, of course, the correlation within or between certain populations could be different from the national average.

                  So I don’t find the result dispositive. But they are very troubling for a Black-White global genetic hypothesis of any appreciable magnitude. (I suspect that there was negative selection in terms of African Americans). But refer to the extended discussion here:

                  http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/super-duper-selection/#comment-1356

                  • Medical students aren’t exactly representative of the population. It’s well known that South Asians for example, especially Indians are more likely to study medicine, hence they’re greatly overrepresented leading to a preponderance of lower ability students. This is probably true for higher education in the UK as a whole.

                    Also, one ought to bear in mind that the CAT3 tests EVERYONE. Does data exist for 16 year olds yet?

                    • As for medical students, I realize that. I looked at other tests too. Refer back here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/partially-falsified/

                      As for more representative adult IQ data — I emailed around — to Deary, Strand, etc. — and no one wanted to give data. Made me rather suspicious. I think a good test would be to check the PISA scores — but I don’t have access to ethnic data. See here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/data-please/

                      Find adult IQ data showing no to trivial gaps and you will win me as a convert to racial egalitarianism (largely).

                    • I don’t understand why no one has looked at IQ scores gaps and published on this. As discussed, this would demolish a global hereditary case. You would think that Flynn or Nisbett or someone else would make this point. Hereditarians obviously have no reply. I asked them (e.g., Chris Brand). Nothing coherent. Dunno.

                    • Chuck you could email the company themselves here:

                      http://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/

                      Ask them if they have CAT data for older age groups. Just don’t mention anything about hbd or hereditary hypothesis!

                      The genetic hypothesis hasn’t been taken seriously in the UK, precisely because of data like this. What modest gaps exist at age 11 can easily be explained by other factors. It’s not like the US where the black-white gap is truly quite robust for some reason, including in tests of academic achievement. Maybe it’s the US that is the true anomaly.

      • 1) Have you written about the 3-7 results?
        2) Is there no other source of data for IQ or CAT for UK teens?
        3) have they refused to make it public?

  3. “I don’t believe it.”

    “I have [no counter evidence], but I don’t believe a word of it. After hearing roughly equivalent stories for my entire adult lifetime, every one of which fell apart, I don’t even bother any more.

    I doubt if the Brits have found a remedy more potent than adoption.”

    • The vast preponderance of the evidence supports an IQ gap that’s at least partially genetic. That evidence has stood the test of time while those who disagreed threw everything they had at it. Now, a study on GCSE’s from another country purports to upset the apple cart. I’m not going to dismiss it out of hand. But I think there could be a whole range of explanations which may or may not support your conclusions. In the meantime, I think Greg Cochran’s skepticism is probably warranted.

      Which is more likely — all those other time-tested studies are wrong and this one is right? Or all those other time-tested studies are right and they just haven’t found the flaws in this one yet?

  4. The last couple of posts received around 2,500 hits. So I imagine that some in the HBDsphere read it. I emailed Brand too, as he continually discusses UK race differences. He said that he didn’t have any recent data and then referred me to a study from the 1980s.

  5. If you have a chance, you could look up and make a list of all the British Industrial Org and Educational psychologists that have published on (this or) related issues. Include their emails. When you’re finished, post it here and I will email those that I have yet to.

  6. Thanks for taking my comment re: GCSEs into account.

    You’ve probably answered this before and I’ve missed it, but any ideas how geography might play into this?

    In England we all know Blacks pretty much means Greater London area (at about 76% with the rest being spread between the other “large” cities).

    We also tend to know that the North is pretty much a wasteland, and much of the rest of the country (no offense, just they’ve been left behind). There are also larger numbers of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the North (only 50%-60% in London), relative to Blacks and more similar to the White percentage, though still concentrated in urban areas.

    In the US, geographical differences in SAT scores can be quite large AFAIK, but don’t seem to change the B-W-A pattern because Asians (like Hispanics) are quite homogenously distributed within high and low performing regions, and Blacks are, while still relatively homogenously distributed, are relatively concentrated in the most poorly performing region (the South), while the Midwestern states with the strongest differences tend to have small populations. (Although note there is now no rural-urban SAT divide in the US!).

    My question would be whether this is also true in the UK, on a similar tip to how the presence of lots of Blacks in the UK, a higher performing country, would not really be taken to mean that “Blacks in Europe are as intelligent or more so than Whites in Europe” after aggregating the whole European sample.

    This would seem suggestive of an answer – http://spatialanalysis.co.uk/2011/08/mapping-gcse-scores/, but only suggestive and I have no idea how to interpret it.

    Also this – http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/low-educational-outcomes/attainment-at-age-11-by-region/.

    Again, this is only because this seems really strange compared to the local patterns of Blacks and Whites at the local schools in the London area, where Black people seem expressive and to specialise in those subjects (as well as vocal and disruptive), but not really intelligent as such at all, even those of recent relatively high performing immigrant parents.

    (I mean, at my sister’s private school, the kids with two Black professional class parents performed alright, but not to the same standard as the kids with two Indian parents, or two White parents, even when those parents were of lower status background (rich construction workers &c), and even my sister who was friendly with them admitted that having lots of Black girls was not doing wonders for the school’s academic reputation).

    • Matt,

      Can you first explain tiering and comment on the effect that it might have (on math and reading scores)? See:
      http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/staff/stevestrand/strand_inpress_tiering_prepub.pdf

      I’ll have to comment latter as I’m busy. You might find this study interesting: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/cedar/staff/stevestrand/strand_2010_differential_pre-print.pdf

      “Explanations that identify low quality schools as the cause of Black Caribbean under- achievement are in some ways reassuring, since they suggest the problem resides in a minority of ‘low quality’ schools which, if these schools can somehow be fixed, will ameliorate the issue of Black Caribbean underachievement. If, as argued here, the White British-Black Caribbean gap widens between age 7 and age 11, but not because they attend poorer quality schools, then the White British-Black Caribbean gap within a significant proportion of schools must be increasing. This within school gap does not appear to be significantly greater in some schools than in others, rather this research suggests the Black Caribbean gap grows almost universally across schools (the gap ranged between -.32 to -.09 in 90% of schools and no school eliminated the gap). The causes of the growth of the White British-Black Caribbean gap are not identified by the study. However it is difficult to sustain an argument that it is due to idiosyncratic within-school factors when Black Caribbean pupils underperform relative to White British pupils in all schools they both attend. This analysis suggests more systemic factors are at play.”

      It seems that the White-Carribean gap is universal in the UK — but small. (Notice in the above graph that the Math + Reading gap averages out to about .3 SD. )

      • Chuck, re: tiers only the obvious stuff that you could parse out from that paper (and I guess have). Teachers select exam tier level appropriate to a student based on subjective judgement of ability level. Exam tier level constrains upper and lower achieveable final marks, but it is not always best to select a higher tier paper, because underperformance there may cause a lower mark. Over entry of an ethnic group into a lower or higher tier, relative to ability, could constrain their high end scores or deflate their scores by giving them a more challenging test that they are not trained on. I guess, the paper you’ve linked offers the hypothesis that British West Indians acting like jerks results in them being demoted to lower tiers to a greater than expected extent, which harms their overall achievement.

        I assume that’s not really what you’re asking, but I can’t really put anything quantitative on it. Not much use I guess.

        I guess, tiers interact with “sets” and “streams”, by set level, determining the final tier level.

        I don’t really know if schools really vary too much internally on the set/stream/tier level they expose students to. I think a lot of the sorting happens at the school choice level instead.

    • “We also tend to know that the North is pretty much a wasteland, and much of the rest of the country (no offense, just they’ve been left behind).”

      Offence taken! There are affluent areas in the north, excellent universities and cultural centres!

  7. Some comments on this and the previous post:

    1. Compare and contrast:

    “Some cross sectional shows a large adult gap, but there is little consistency across data — with points ranging from 0.3 SD to 1.7 SD — calling this data into question.”

    and

    “The Black-White Longitudinal IQ gap does not systematically increase with age (between 3 and 11) as it does in the US, but it either stays the same, decreases, or bounces around. [...] There are, at most, small genetic differences, with respect to intelligence, between Black and White adolescents and young adults born in the UK. I base this on the following: (c) The data from the mentioned longitudinal studies does not agree with the conjecture that the gaps increase with age.”

    Does not the incoherence of data that shows an intelligence gap variously staying the same, decreasing, and “bouncing around” suggest that, according to the precedent Chuck himself set, it too should be very strongly called into question?

    Truly, this junk data does not “agree with the conjecture”, but neither is it strong evidence in disfavour of the conjecture. Rather, it is just useless in making any relevant inferences, because it doesn’t appear to have any strong and reliable entanglement with reality.

    That dispenses with fully one third of Chuck’s substantial argument in disfavour of a negro-European intelligence difference.

    Furthermore, isn’t testing 3-year-olds for IQ kinda stupid? How can one possibly treat these results on kids who probably don’t even have a clue what they’re doing let alone care about the test as seriously as the results of a test on, for example, motivated army recruits?

    2. “As further evidence against super-duper selection theory, I present the result of Somalian refugees, who presumably were not very selected and who perform only 0.5 SD below Whites in measures of scholastic achievement.”

    Somalis tend to have a similar skin colour to negroes, but ethnically speaking are intermediate to the rough sub-Saharan negro population cluster and Arabs. 0.5SD in therefore about what one might expect the real intelligence differential to be between Somalis and Europeans. Any dark-brown-skinned human != colloquial “black person” as regards ethnic taxonomy.

    There goes another third of Chuck’s argument.

    3. Concerning scholastic tests:
    Firstly, let’s look at the graph of data from “Goodman et al., 2009”. Notice that the intelligence gap between Indians and Pakistanis according to this graph varies between about 0.8SD and 0.5SD. This is despite the fact that Pakistanis and Indians are ethnic neighbours – and UK Indians are mostly Punjabis and Gujaratis, who are among the Indians most similar to Pakistanis in general (likewise, UK Pakistanis tend to be Punjabis rather than say Pashtuns). That this kind of gap should reflect the actual intelligence gap between these populations, therefore, is ludicrous.

    On the other hand, it *does* reflect the real difference in the type of upbringing that these groups receive in the UK, Pakistanis being highly insular and religious whereas Indians tend to aspire to a middle class station in a relatively integrated British life.

    Clearly, then, this data doesn’t resemble a bona fide intelligence test. After all, applying a little common sense, IQ tests are designed to test pure extempore cognitive power, whereas school exams are quite purposely intended to reward studying and effort put in outside of the exam hall. Yes, GCSE results surely are somewhat correlated with intelligence, but the correlation would have been much weaker if the kids included in the test were for example 50% black African and 50% native British.

    That is to say, when we see this result:

    “This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000+ English children examined the association between psychometric intelligence at age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25 academic subjects at age 16. The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman’s g from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design.” (Intelligence and educational achievement.)”

    Those 70,000 kids are largely of the same work ethic, therefore the GCSE results do tend to reflect intelligence amongst that large group in general; but this doesn’t mean to say that a small sub-group which possesses a distinctly stronger-than-average work ethic can’t be an exception to the overall correlation factor. African negro kids have parents who are used to the idea that failure to get an education => appalling poverty, whereas native British kids in general have a very cynical and disinterested approach to tests like the GCSE.

    In fact, this is patent, i.e. it’s not just a guess but actually plain to see, for the reason given above; that UK Pakistanis and Indians are far too closely related to have such a large apparent intelligence difference. These results *manifestly* don’t give us something close to an accurate picture of bona fide raw intelligence or “g” differences.

    4. Further to looking at the stats surrounding GCSEs, let’s apply some deductive common sense. Firstly, there are overt political reasons why policy makers don’t want school exams to reflect intelligence differences. That is to say, Western politicians and establishment figures come right out and say that they are trying to close the gap in educational achievement. “No child left behind” and all that, which exists just as much in the UK as anywhere else in the West. We note that GCSE are horribly – *ludicrously* – dumbed down from what they were say 50 years ago. Is it really any surprise that these Mickey Mouse exams manage to make blacks look smart? They aren’t anything resembling an effective sieve for intelligence, by design!

    It is therefore chumpish in the extreme to be using these as a proxy for intelligence, when there continues to exist much more reliable (albeit still very inferior to non-statistical real-life evidence regarding ethnic intelligence differences), undiluted tests for extempore intelligence – namely, IQ tests conducted on mature, normally motivated adults. And guess what? As Chuck admits, these show the same thing that they always do: “There are modest to large adult IQ gaps in the UK”. That is by far the most reliable, apposite statistic that he has to show and one that is corroborated more or less every time anyone conducts an IQ test on negro and European adults.

    5. “The Chinese sample, of course, suggests that more than g is involved in population differences”

    Sure does! Like, maybe, studiousness? Isn’t it nice when people point out the gaping holes in their own arguments?

    • Phlebas,

      So why do you hate Black people? (Kidding.)

      Look, I already reviewed all the data that I could find concerning IQ gaps. Refer yourself here. I agree that the data, taken as a whole, looks odd. What’s even more odd is that within 5-10 years Liberal British Whites managed to close a substantial Black-White gap. Look at the constancy of the 5+ A-C differences from 1980 to 2004 here and then compare those difference with the most recent data here. So based on the data, an achievement gap of about 0.5 SD was closed in 5 years. That’s unprecedented. One obvious explanation is that stereotype threat has been eradicated in the UK though the use of anti-hate-fact laws.

      Anyways, so I agree that the data is curious. And there can be no doubt that the adult Black British IQ is low. Convergent evidence, as reviewed, comes from Situational Judgement tests, Medical aptitude tests, Law aptitude tests, and Industrial aptitude tests. The dates of the studies cited range from 2003 to recent, unpublished. Unlike Lynn’s data, mine are hardly dated. Moreover the results can’t simply be attributed to low recent immigrant scores. The LNAT scores shows that Black Africans, who are mostly first to second generation immigrants, score the same as Black Caribbeanians, who are mostly second to third generation immigrants.

      And yet, as I have shown there are trivial to small math and reading score differences. I think the most parsimonious explanation is what I offered:

      (1) Blacks in Black places have physiological low IQs due to crappy environments. (2) As a result Black immigrants to the UK and elsewhere have low IQs. (3) This is reflected in the adult
      data and will be for a while since the average age of these samples is probably around 30 to 40. It will take time for the IQ increases to trickle up. (4) But second and third generation Blacks show only trivial to small gaps as testified by the most recent achievement data. (5) There are some anomalies as mentioned above but these can be explained away. We are dealing with the balance of the evidence. And national achievement data is far stronger than that coming from a few samples such as the GL assessment data or the LNAT data (as discussed).

  8. Further to the above, some attention is due to the nature of that graph from the Goodman paper “Inequalities in educational outcomes among children aged 3 to 16″. It is calculated on the basis that a standard deviation in Key Stage 4 scores is equivalent to 155 GCSE points, and GCSE points are summed on the following basis:

    A* grade = 58 points
    A grade = 52 points
    B grade = 46 points
    [...]
    G grade = 16 points

    Therefore, it certainly isn’t the case that the graph in question is a straightforward isomorph of a similar representation of ethnic IQ scores, even if one were to accept the proposition that the modern GCSE is suitable to be treated as a test of raw intelligence.

    If on a trustworthy graph of IQ scores ethnic group A is 1SD lower than ethnic group B, that means that, as far as this statistic is to be taken seriously, only 16% of group A ethnics are of above-average intelligence by the standards of group B.

    Does the same hold for Goodman’s graph, however well GCSE results in general might be correlated with IQ? Not at all. Firstly, any kid with IQ>120 can get more or less uniform A* grades if he puts in a modest effort. That makes the test very poor at discriminating intelligence at the top end.

    What about the bottom end? The difference between a D and a no-score is 34 points, whereas the difference between an A* and a D is 24 points – but I’d be inclined to lump the D and the no-score together as “retarded or lazy” and hesitate to expect the D-scorer to be significantly more intelligent than the no-scorer if at all, whereas the difference in intelligence between the A* student and the D student might well be absolutely huge and yet still count for less as far as points are concerned.

    This means that dumb little African negroes with pushy parents can massively outscore cynical and disinterested native kids of similar intelligence, just by bothering to mark a few earnest scribbles under each question rather than putting in no effort at all. It’s not exactly difficult to score a “D” at GCSE these days.

    This all goes to illustrate that the GCSE regime isn’t actually designed to measure intelligence across a broad range and produce a calibrated distribution of scores. I would add this to the fact that school exam results depend quite a lot on preparation, as an additional reason for skepticism regarding the use of GCSE grades in place of IQ test results.

    I also expect that a break-down of actual grades by ethnicity would be a lot more illuminating than the crude and possibly self-serving lumped statistic that Goodman (or his sources) offered up. I’d certainly be surprised if black Africans earned more A* grades than the native kids in the study.

    • “I also expect that a break-down of actual grades by ethnicity would be a lot more illuminating than the crude and possibly self-serving lumped statistic that Goodman (or his sources) offered up. I’d certainly be surprised if black Africans earned more A* grades than the native kids in the study.”

      Ok, this is why I presented the test score data above. Compare
      the differences in the UK with the differences in the US. The g-loadings of the US and UK tests are equivalent. So the absence of a difference in the UK is as much evidence against a UK IQ gap as the presence of a difference in the US is evidence for a US IQ gap. And hereditarians regularly argue that the US achievement gap is evidence of an IQ gaps. So I’m on good standing here. See the Gottfredson cite above. Also refer to section 4 of Rushton and Jensen 2010, here.

      As for motivational arguments, they go both ways.

  9. Just one more comment of a general nature:

    This confirms my previous conclusion: The Black-White Gaps are trivial to small (in effect size) and don’t increase with age. The data here disconfirms Lynn’s hypothesis. Defenders of this embattled hypothesis need to account for the absence of more than trivial to small gaps, given the large differences between social classes and, more importantly, given the substantial correlation (.7) found between g and these test scores.

    Setting aside the merits or demerits of Chuck’s arguments, there is a burden of proof problem here. Evidence in favour of a robust, inherent difference in average intelligence across ethnic groups includes a wealth of real-life things like the frequency with which (for example) Jewish thinkers and scientists emerge in comparison to negro or Papuan geniuses. It also includes more or less every IQ testing regime ever – IQ tests being an obviously flawed and inexact tool, but still having an apparent relationship to the real if nebulous concept of intelligence by virtue of the correlation between individual IQ scores, and success in business and intellectual pursuits.

    Chuck has found some new evidence which he, at the time of posting, considered to be fairly strong evidence in disfavour of ethnic differences in intelligence. However, instead of jumping to the conclusion that “Defenders of the embattled hypothesis need to account for this new evidence”, did it not occur to him to first reach for the other conclusion, that “Defenders of this new data (or implications therefrom) need to account for the fact that it contradicts a very large body of incompatible evidence”? After all, it’s not as though the timing of the evidence is particular relevant; a valid-looking IQ test from 1990 should be assigned the same weight evidentially speaking as a valid-looking IQ test from 2012, until someone provides a good reason to do otherwise (e.g. by demonstrating that the earlier – or later – IQ test wasn’t properly conducted).

    In other words, Chuck should learn to defy the data when appropriate. As it happens, I don’t think much of the data (or Chuck’s interpretation of it) in this case anyway, so it’s quality control that presents a more immediate problem. But still, just because one experiment or finding contradicts a well-established theory, one should not immediately seek to throw out the theory rather than questioning the experiment itself. This is *especially* the case when dealing with soft “social science” results like we have here, since experimental (if “experiment” is even the right word given the generally uncontrolled nature of social science studies) results in this context are less conclusive and deserve to be taken with a much bigger pinch of salt than in, say, physics.

  10. Thanks for the links Chuck, now we are cooking! I am still concerned about drop out. The key report for your graph is a technical (non-peer reviewed) paper from Dustman et. al: (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_12_08.pdf) .

    As you noted, the data is not IQ test but subject achievement test. More like the US NEAP or the No Child tests that they give and there is substantial drop out because the graph you show only includes subjects who sit for all the tests:

    “From this data base, we select all pupils who took Key Stage 1 exams in 1998 and can be
    followed throughout the end of compulsory schooling, i.e. Key Stage 4 exams in 2007. We restrict the sample to pupils who have valid test scores in Mathematics and English in each key stage, and pupils with non-missing information on ethnicity, free meal eligibility, and English as a mother tongue. The final sample accounts for about 75% of all pupils who sat Key Stage 1 exams in 1998. (page 10)”

    The authors try to claim that this is not important:

    “One may worry that, due to the fairly large reduction in sample size, our findings may not be
    representative for the cohorts as a whole. However, several robustness checks indicate that test score gaps between the White British and ethnic minorities evolve similarly throughout primary and secondary school no matter which sample restrictions are used. For instance, attainment gaps are similar if the sample includes all pupils who take key stage exams in the relevant years.”

    They did not show these “robustness analyses” but that is not enough. What they need to show is the gap including the 25% of subjects without scores at all time points. Alternately they can show that the chance of having data at age 16 is independent of score at 6, race and etc. To get a taste of what I am concerned about compare the change the Pakistani SD difference in table 3 of 15 (1.5 SD) at age 5 to the 8 point difference (0.8 SDs) at age 6 in the graph. That is quite a drop in a year. Either the test is not every g loaded or there is some drop out of the dumb dumbs in the final graph that only included students who took all the tests.

    • [edited]

      “I am still concerned about drop out…. More like the US NEAP or the No Child tests that they give and there is substantial drop out because the graph you show only includes subjects who sit for all the tests”

      Stats,

      (Sorry, rather rushed. Ignore the typos.)

      With regards to attrition rate there are two potentially important issues: (1) It complicates longitudinal comparisons and (2) it complicates endpoint comparisons. Now, my claim is that the IQ gap (a) starts out small and (b) either decreases or does not increase with age. My primary evidence for (a) is the 2008 MCS age 7 sample showing a .35 Black-White IQ difference on the BAS and the math and reading test score data in the numerous samples that I have pointed to. With regards to (a) attrition is a non-issue. Is it an issue for (b)? Let’s ignore the longitudinal comparison. We can just do an endpoint comparisons (at Keystone 4 and 5). Here we see trivial differences on NAEP like tests (tests which in other instances are used as evidence, and indeed a measure, of the IQ gap (e.g., Rushton and Jensen, 2010)). Now, you can always point out issue (2). But this is not a problem specific to my data sources. Because there is attrition in the testing population, all end point data sets will be subject to this objection. What we need to look at is the educational attrition rates by ethnicity and then estimate the impact that this could have. Here is some data on participation in further education by ethnicity (Further education: Raising skills, improving life chances: The implications for race equality, 2006). As can be seen (page 62-63) Blacks, ages 16-18 and 19-24, are somewhat overrepresented in further education. So, likely, accounting for attrition is not going to increase the test gap — unless a substantial number of high IQ Whites drop out of school.

  11. Chuck, You may have dealt with this point. I believe it has been raised by other commentors. But… is there an alternative to the GSCE in the UK that elite students (those junior 1%’ ers) at expensive schools take. I am thinking of something like an International Bacceaaureate that may be diverting a very white, very smart group out of the sample.

    • Gilbert,

      For background, refer to this somewhat dated Gene Expression post and to this comment by Galtonian.
      With regards to the latter, note that the 2009 A-levels still seem to show an appreciable gap. It’s difficult to judge the magnitude, though, as we are lacking QCDA point score standard deviations. Galtonian advised that I dig up the test score data, which is what I have done. As for your point specifically, I don’t think that the small ethnic differences in public/private attendance rates will affect the scores much. Try playing around with some numbers and see if you come to the same conclusion.

  12. So why do you hate Black people?

    I’m not the self-styled occidentalist.

    Look, I already reviewed all the data that I could find concerning IQ gaps. Refer yourself here.

    Those aren’t IQ gaps. They are school test results. State schooling is dumbed down beyond belief, and the people in charge of it are credited whenever they manage to make “underperforming minorities” look smart. Statistically speaking, since GCSE and A-level exam results have improved more or less year-upon-year for the last two decades, British kids are increasingly well-educated – this is of course nonsense on stilts. Enough said about your preference for schoolies over valid IQ tests and rampant conflation of the twain.

    I agree that the data, taken as a whole, looks odd. What’s even more odd is that within 5-10 years Liberal British Whites managed to close a substantial Black-White gap. One obvious explanation is that stereotype threat has been eradicated in the UK though the use of anti-hate-fact laws.

    Even more interestingly, negroes walking around, doing jobs (or not) &c are still dumb as bricks. Maybe the stereotype threat selectively attacks people who are engaged in serious intellectual pursuits and respectable tests of intelligence rather than infantile, politicised school tests.

    (1) Blacks in Black places have physiological low IQs due to crappy environments. (2) As a result Black immigrants to the UK and elsewhere have low IQs. (3) This is reflected in the adult data and will be for a while since the average age of these samples is probably around 30 to 40. It will take time for the IQ increases to trickle up.

    Negroes began arriving here in large numbers more than 60 years ago. I reckon most negro 35 year-olds in the UK were born here, so the bad environment excuse is tenuous. Moreover, it doesn’t explain the continued failure of American negroes who have no such excuse. It’s not like Chinese immigrants were all raised in the land of milk and honey either. As ever, the idea that negroes are stupid because of their environment – despite the fact that they are stupid wherever they are raised, and many other populations in their vicinity are not – is anything but parsimonious. Likewise, “stereotype threat” is palpable pap and, funnily enough, it never stopped negroes from excelling at boxing and other athletic pursuits (i.e. things they are actually good at) when they weren’t supposed to.

    Ok, this is why I presented the test score data above

    No, I would want to see total A* grades, total A grades etc. by ethnicity. Any kind of data that lumps together every kid, whether stupid, lazy, smart or hard-working – sometimes with optional unexplained statistical manipulation – is much less informative than the raw grade-breakdown would be. That probably explains the preference of the government’s social scientists for furnishing their readers with the former.

    And hereditarians regularly argue that the US achievement gap is evidence of an IQ gaps. So I’m on good standing here.

    Science and probability theory doesn’t follow social rules like this. If your evidence and powers of interpretation are lousy, your argument counts for little; it doesn’t matter if someone else used a similarly weak countervailing argument.

    Evidence from school tests is weak stuff either way. Your arguments (or those of anyone leaning heavily on this kind of evidence) rely on a fraught chain of inferences: if this or that unilluminating lump-statistic is meaningful and effective in discriminating intelligence (more so than being primarily a measure of whether the dumb kids bothered to put in the slightest bit of effort), if the sample of kids involved is representative of respective populations, if the correlation between school exams and general intelligence is reliable, if this correlation factor can be safely generalised across diverse groups, if all of these statistics are comparable across different choices of exam subject and different years of the GCSE regime – and so forth.

    IQ testing is much better, because it is dedicated to measuring intelligence and that alone, in a reliable way free from political interference. And better still by far is non-statistical evidence, like Nobel Prizes by ethnicity, CEOs and successful businessmen by ethnicity, great philosophers by ethnicity, self-made men by ethnicity et cetera. This is why the entire thrust of your blog, or what I’ve seen of it – to be treating state school exam statistics like manna from heaven, and ignoring a plethora of much higher-quality evidence – seems misguided to me.

  13. I have presented the following evidence: GCSE pass results. Math and reading achievement test results. GQ scores. Rates of participation in further education. And rates of mental retardation and LD. What is your counter-evidence, restricted to individuals age 20 and below?

    The weak countervailing evidence I referred to was the deficit in school results between negroes and Europeans in the US, which you mentioned yourself.

    Otherwise my response to your question is that it’s a silly question. Why should I want to arbitrarily restrict evidence on ethnic intelligence differences to those under the age of 20?

    Still, to answer I would simply say that the usual real-life arguments, which are worth more than any conceivable statistics, apply: lack of negro geniuses despite ample opportunity, apparent inability to sustain moderate level of civilization when left to their own devices, and predictable sinking to the bottom status and economic level of any multiracial society. This generalises very easily to the under-20s on the basis that until demonstrated otherwise, I should reasonably expect that in most cases dumb adults were formerly dumb children. Likewise, I’ve no reason to expect that a 30-year-old who scores 80 on an IQ test would have been of above-average intelligence as a 15-year-old.

    Anyway, let’s be honest about the results you’ve linked to there: they show negroes being outperformed by Europeans (and Asians). It’s just that the gap is diminished. I mean gee whizz, given all the effort that the Universalist government puts into closing gaps in official test scores and other measures of educational attainment, I’m not sure whose side of the argument these stats even favour; imagine how big the officially-determined (after much mastication of choice data, thereafter to be presented in whatever fashion happens to best illustrate whatever the court scientists are hoping to prove, for our credulous swallowing) statistical gap would be if the government and social meddlers were trying with all their might to widen it!

    Also, hehe, looking at those GCSE pass results again, compare the female pass rate to the male pass rate: since when have women been clearly smarter than men? And the Chinese: generally 3 IQ points smarter, but 20% better scores than native Britons on every measure? Again, the idea that these results give a realistic and proportionate indication of IQ or intelligence is refuted by reality, whatever some other over-generalised statistic may have to say about it.

    On the subject of that key statistic, let’s take a closer look at that paper. Here is the abstract:

    This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000+ English children examined the association between psychometric intelligence at age 11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25 academic subjects at age 16. The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman’s g from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design. Girls showed no advantage in g, but performed significantly better on all subjects except Physics. This was not due to their better verbal ability. At age 16, obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A*–C is an important criterion. 61% of girls and 50% of boys achieved this. For those at the mean level of g at age 11, 58% achieved this; a standard deviation increase or decrease in g altered the values to 91% and 16%, respectively.

    So yeah, there appears to be a correlation, looking at the kids en masse, between IQ (or “g”) and GCSE scores. Unsurprising. But right here in the abstract, we can see that despite having more or less exactly the same g-score as males, the girls in the study did fully 11% better by the criterion of 5 A*-C (NB: females being another of the Universalists’ favoured “oppressed” groups, of course – beginning to see a pattern?). In other words, for the purposes of comparing groups this correlation between IQ and GCSE statistics of various kinds is manifestly fickle and can’t be relied upon – straight from the horse’s mouth – even if the treating of it as an immutable constant didn’t already bring about numerous conflicts with common sense.

  14. Chuck: ‘So based on the data, an achievement gap of about 0.5 SD was closed in 5 years. That’s unprecedented. One obvious explanation is that stereotype threat has been eradicated in the UK though the use of anti-hate-fact laws.’

    I must admit that when I read that I supposed it to be tongue in cheek. I still believe it to be a wry comment indeed. The success of the UK authorities in the war against hate-facts is definitely the key to this paradox, but not necessarily in the way you suggest above. I agree the stereotype threat explanation is ‘parsimonious’ in the sense of simple, like a miracle.

    I share Cochran’s skepticism here. The data has been tortured almost to death by a thousand cuts. I’ll go for a complex explanation without magic.

  15. Chuck,
    The data in your link is mostly about subjects and older and even there the results are mixed. Look at table 10 and note that 22% of Caribbean blacks 16-24 not in school, training or work? I don’t know enough about the UK education system to know how the rates in the link relate to GCSE scores. However, I do know you can take the GCSE repeatedly? Regardless, it doesn’t matter, if the dropout rate is the same by race if the probability of drop out differs by score and race.

    As for a) and b) the graph you showed will be biased in both aspects because even at a given age only students who took all the tests are included in the analysis. This is fun, what else we got? We know we don’t have yet data from an established IQ test by race from a population sample with a minimum drop out. The GC results are promising except at the upper ages you are still are going to get selection bias because they are using school tests not stand alone independently administered IQ tests. The Retard data is fun but the definition of Retard includes more than just IQ and differs by country the numbers are not radically different than the US. This is intriguing but much less definitive than the NLSY. I am glad we are working this out here and now before the NYT comes out with a story on the wonders of British public education.

    • “This is fun, what else we got?”
      Stats,
      Could you give me an estimate of the effect size of bias that you have in mind? I’m just not seeing it. At the last data point, Black West Indians underperformed Whites by only .3 SD (math plus reading averages.) Black Africans by .0 SD. Average .15 SD. So let’s say that sampling bias resulted in a 25% reduction in the difference. We then have a whopping .2 SD difference.

  16. Hey Chuck,
    Hope you’re doing well in your treatments…..

    BTW, a commenter at onestdv.com offered some nice words about your blog, and then said that you’d recently said you renounced inherent IQ differences, or words to that effect.
    without checking, I casually replied to him that i was pretty sure you were still a hereditarian, but then I read these latest posts after not being here for quite some time.

    So, in a nutshell? Have you reconsidered there being hereditarian causation?

    And please, if you’re feeling up to it, slum with us every now and then and visit some, umm, ‘qualitative’ blogs such as onestdv and shoot a little zeitgeist breeze with us! :)

    • Nikcrit,

      Thanks for inquiring. I haven’t found a cure yet, if that’s what your asking. I’ve been experimenting a lot, though. Check out this drug which is next on my list: http://destee.com/index.php?threads/nigeria-gets-iq-memory-enhancing-drug.67810/
      IQ tests are inherently biased, eh?

      As for hereditarianism, I’m getting a lot of rationalizations in response to the data that I have presented. I haven’t had the energy to well articulate my critique, though. You can piece it together from the following posts:

      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/is-global-race-realism-still-tenable/
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/more-uk-data-more-hbd-skepticism/
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/holland-white-black-gap/

      Basically, as I noted above, judging from GCSE pass results, math and reading achievement test results, IQ scores from a recent nationally representative sample, rates of participation in further education, and rates of mental retardation and LD, British Blacks, of this most recent generation, don’t significantly underperform British Whites. Some have managed to punch a few holes in this or that piece of evidence, but, to my mind, no one has managed to punch a hole though the evidence taken as a whole — and I’m not just talking about bloggers. For example, I recently emailed British hereditarian psychologist Chris Brand about this and his reply was that the tests were not g-loaded. But, not only did I present research demonstrating that they were, I presented g-scores, albeit for kids at young ages. Statsquatch, above, has questioned some of my data points, but taking his points into consideration won’t largely change the overall main effect. Others have argued that Whites might be culturally disadvantages and have trotted out variants of the arguments used by US environmentalists: Chav stereotype threat, psychometrically biased tests, cultural shock (which I guess works like an inverse caste system), and so on. If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be comical. Needless to say, right or wrong, I’ve lost much respect for “race realism” and “HBD.”

      If confirmed, small to trivial g differences in the UK wouldn’t mean that there are no hereditarian (i.e., additive genetic) differences, since, yes, there could be psychometric bias against Whites — *facepalm* –and, more reasonably, since Black migrants to the UK could be genetically unrepresentative of native African populations. (And obviously, even if there weren’t global race differences, there could still be local ones, such as difference between African and European Americans, owing to different fertility patterns and different population histories — to quote the famed psychologist Hans Eysenck: “Thus there is every reason to expect that the particular sub-sample of the negro race which is constituted of American Negroes is not an unselected sample of Negroes, but has been selected throughout history according to criteria which would put the highly intelligent at a disadvantage. The inevitable outcome of such selection would of course be the creation of a gene pool lacking some of the genes making for high intelligence.”) Nor would it mean that there aren’t large genetically ’caused’ differences related to IQ — since differences could manifest and multiply through active g-e correlations. It would mean, though, that the additive genetic difference between global races aren’t large — that they are small enough that they can be masked by selective migration, which I’ve estimated, can only have an effect size of .35 SD or so, with respect to IQ. And, importantly, that the global differences are (non-pharmaceutically) environmentally malleable. “Race realism” — which is somewhat deterministic — would then be a shadow of itself — and it’s already faded quite a bit since the 1930s.

      So have I reconsidered hereditarian causation? Yes. But I haven’t rule it out. And I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong about the UK IQs — and so all of the above. I’m just not open to hereditarian rationalization. I do think that the global IQ differences are largely physiological in nature. See here: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20120307 (I wrote Hank and bitched about his statement: “Obviously, Africans have been oppressed by colonialist imperialism, capitalist exploitation, and authoritarian regimes….” He admitted that he inserted that the assuage the animosity of anti-racists and pointed me to his neutral original, which said something to the effect of “neither race nor racism.”) In terms of parasite infections, it’s notable that most African Americans are concentrated in the South, that, controlling for race, Southerners have lower IQs than northerners, and that one of the best predictors of state IQ is state parasite rate: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000286
      So that could play a hand.

      Anyways, I’ll comment more when I feel up to it.

      • I read the article by Hank Pellissier. Do those diseases apply to Carribean black populations too? Don’t they have similarly low IQs?

        • Lynn says that they do. But Lynn — or at least his estimates — cant be trusted. If you can find some good Caribbean data let me know.

  17. Hi Chuck
    A 25% loss can be a big deal if the probability of not being in the sample depends on the score you are interested in. Below is an R simulation where I transformed a 15 SD BW Gap to a .1 SD gap via informative drop out:

    bb=rnorm(1000,85,15)
    ww=rnorm(1000,100,15)
    bb=sort(bb)
    bb2=bb[250:1000]
    ww=sort(ww)
    ww2=ww[1:750]

    mean(ww2) = 93.3
    mean(bb2) = 91.5

    The assumptions are extreme but the problem with drop out is that you can never really be sure what happened. Anyway, it is easy to over interpret data you have a lot invested in. As others have noted, this is I interesting but you have to balance it with the bulk of data on the other side of the issue.

    • What would a slightly more sophisticated simulation look like? Let’s say 50% of the dropouts are in the bottom quartile, 35% are in the second quartile, 10% in the third quartile and 5% in the top quartile? Or some reasonable guesses you come up with on your own? Or maybe Chuck would like to provide some guesses?

      • Sure, I used thirds but it is possible to more than half the SD difference if you assume differential drop out that is very high among the less gifted, and more troublesome, blacks.

        drop.est_function(score,c1,c2,c3){
        alpha=log(c1/(1-c1))
        beta=log(c2/(1-c2))
        gamma=log(c3/(1-c3))
        lg_alpha*ifelse(score<85,1,0) + beta*ifelse(85<score& score<110,1,0)+gamma*ifelse(110<score,1,0)
        p_1/(exp(-lg)+1)
        drop.est_rbinom(length(p),1,p)
        return(drop.est)
        }

        ww=rnorm(400000,100,15)
        bb_rnorm(10000,85,15)

        bb.drop_drop.est(bb,.90,.40,.05)
        mean(bb[bb.drop==0])
        sum(bb.drop) = 94

        ww.drop_drop.est(ww,.35,.25,.05)
        sum(ww.drop)
        mean(ww[ww.drop==0]) = 101

    • “Anyway, it is easy to over interpret data you have a lot invested in. As others have noted, this is I interesting but you have to balance it with the bulk of data on the other side of the issue.”

      I have a lot invested in the hereditarian hypothesis. If you could satiate my skepticism I would be rather pleased. But the UK gap has been bugging me for years now. I don’t know what you mean by “balance it with the bulk of data.” The bulk of the data outside the UK is not relevant to that inside. Again, what we’re interested in is estimating the UK gap. Only if you assume a genetic hypothesis in the first place, does a large US or South African gap increase the probability of a UK gap. If so you’re begging the question. As for the “bulk of the data” inside the UK, I’ve already provided the most comprehensive review of everything in the last 15 years.

  18. As for hereditarianism, I’m getting a lot of rationalizations in response to the data that I have presented.

    This is true. The idea that African negroes are, due to discriminative immigration restrictions, similar in intelligence to native Britons is improbable and clearly a lazy rationalization.

    On the other hand to look immediately for alternative explanations for Chuck’s “data”, when confronted with the argument that said data contradicts such a well-established theory as the one stating that negroes possess inherently weaker mental capabilities than Europeans, is the appropriate response. This is normal defying of the data, as was also appropriate in the recent case of the (subsequently disconfirmed) data about superluminal neutrinos: a fool might have jumped to the conclusion that a revolution in physics was at hand, but wise and rational fellows pondered any and all reasons why these almost certainly false results had come about (as you will recall, on that occasion it was a loose computer cable; in the case in question, all manner of loose reasoning).

    Furthermore, I repeat for the edification of those addled by statistical scientism, the results of any uncontrolled experiment – let alone a school test – are not nearly as weighty as the results of a physics or other hard science (i.e. actual science) experiment; therefore anomalous results in this context should a fortiori be treated with immediate skepticism. Cf. cargo cult science.

    The key is to try to be perspicacious enough to locate the correct reasons, in due time, for the anomaly (although in the meantime, there is no need to concede any particular priority to the new data). I believe that I have identified the primary fallacies involved; viz.:

    1. Irrelevant reference made to Somalis, who shouldn’t even be part of the discussion about negro IQ because they don’t fall at all comfortably into the traditional “negroid” population cluster, which happens to be the rough clustering of humanity that is the primary subject of the theory of a “black-white” inter-racial intelligence divide.
    2. Extensive use of statistics derived from school testing regimes as a proxy for IQ – even going so far as to refer to school tests as IQ tests without qualification. Until Chuck provides an explanation why he thinks that said statistics are suitable for use in this way, despite the facts that:
    a) The statistics offer implausibly large gaps (if taken to be equivalent to the same gaps on a scale of IQ) between given populations such as Pakistani and Indian, or Chinese and everyone else.
    b) More damningly, the GCSE statistics show females heavily and consistently outscoring males, despite their having demonstrably the same general intelligence – even according to the selfsame paper that evinces a correlation between “g” and these test scores – and across a range of statistics that Chuck has been casually using as a complement of IQ scores (not only in an ordinal sense, but treating very standard deviations as wholly alike between measures).

    reasonable people should consider Chuck’s argument soundly defeated.

    Others have argued that Whites might be culturally disadvantages and have trotted out variants of the arguments used by US environmentalists: Chav stereotype threat, psychometrically biased tests, cultural shock (which I guess works like an inverse caste system), and so on. If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be comical.

    “Stereotype threat”, taken to be a serious influence in the affairs of man, is indeed an absurd idea. It is equally absurd whomever it is supposed to be disadvantaging.

    “Culture shock” has to be seen to be understood, and as (I presume) an American Chuck should be careful not to generalise without due circumspection from his own experiences of race-relations (which, it seems to me speaking from this side of the Atlantic, are not quite as iniquitous to people of European extraction in general – although as bad in some respects, cf. Travyon affair). Minority ethnic groups in Britain often form extreme local majorities; they also tend to possess much greater cultural cohesion than native Britons, since (relatively innocent) attempts of native Britons to express solidarity are routinely condemned by establishment institutions whereas ethnic minorities are given free rein. Therefore, native British state schoolchildren may indeed find themselves, ethnically speaking, to be the least privileged caste and possibly lacking in healthy corporate identity of some kind. However, as a hereditarian I too would hesitate to consider this pertinent to the matter of raw intelligence differences.

    Regarding “psychometrically biased tests”: firstly, it is well known that changes to the content of school testing regimes, i.e. the introduction of coursework, have effectively improved female results at the expense of the males. Addressing the erstwhile “gender gap” was also a priority of the government (although not so much a target now, seemingly). Therefore, there is reason to believe that psychometric alteration of a testing regime, broadly construed (in this case to favour the more conscientious sex), is possible and has been deliberately used to fulfil an ideological end.

    On the other hand, it is not necessary to invoke psychometric alteration in order to suggest that GCSE and other testing regimes have been changed in order to (among other imperatives) minimise the apparent statistical gap between negroes and other ethnic groups. The way in which this has been achieved, it would appear to me, is that the tests have been sufficiently dumbed down and made stultifying, that they do little to discriminate amongst the right-hand side of the bell curve and therefore – facilitated by the choice of points allocation per grade, and the type of statistics furnished to the public – a larger proportion of the official gap in “educational attainment” than in the past depends simply on the motivational level of a large class of relatively dull and disinterested school kids, whose stratification of intelligence by ethnicity is scarcely reflected in the grades they little care to obtain (and plausibly distorted by the very particular degeneracy or rebellious disinterest of the “chav”).

    So, taking Chuck’s remark about the absurdity of the idea of psychometrically biased tests to be a rejoinder to myself, this is wide of the mark since it is possible for a testing regime – or at least its visible outcomes – to be biased or manipulated without this manipulation being essentially psychometric in nature.

    • “On the other hand, it is not necessary to invoke psychometric alteration in order to suggest that GCSE and other testing regimes have been changed in order to (among other imperatives) minimise the apparent statistical gap between negroes and other ethnic groups. The way in which this has been achieved, it would appear to me, is that the tests have been sufficiently dumbed down and made stultifying, that they do little to discriminate amongst the right-hand side of the bell curve and therefore”

      Were you correct about the tests being “sufficiently dumbed down,” then we would expect to see (1) the variance reduced or (2) the g-loadings, relative to equivalent US tests, reduced or (3) the heritabilities reduced. Neither are. I’ve already debunked this debunking. So what explains the lack of difference above?

    • Basically, I’m unable to find the 2nd+ generation g scores for ages >7 which I need to soundly put this issue to rest. But you’re unable to explain the lack of math and reading achievement etc., differences, given their heritabilities, g loadings, and the variance. One of your (and Stats’) complaint is that I’m not properly weighing the global evidence. Again, I am arguing that Lynn’s 50/50 hereditarian hypothesis is falsified by a criteria that he and others have given. Quote:

      “If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified. Those who maintain that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between the races are urged to attempt this task. (Lynn, 2010. Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan).”

      Crazy me for taking him literally. And crazy me for using test results as evidence, when in all other instances they are used so. At very least, we can conclude that Jensen was wrong when he said:

      “Because g is the primary effective factor both in the practical validity of tests and in the magnitude of the B–W difference in unselected groups, the conjunction of these two effects is the unavoidable cause of adverse impact when g-loaded tests are used in selection. (Jensen, 2000. The Dilemma of group differences: Testing: The Dilemma of Group Differences)”

      I guess, by your reading, the British have found highly g-loaded tests which shows no “adverse impact,” despite g differences. This is somewhat surprising, given the large body of evidence showing that g differences lead to differences on g loaded tests in proportion to these differences. How does that body of evidence weigh in?

    • It’s true that the tests show girls outscoring boys and the Chinese vastly outscoring everyone else. I think we all agree that this does not accurately reflect innate IQ differences between the respective groups. The normal hereditarian position is that boys are as smart as girls and that East-Asians are only modestly smarter than most of the other groups in question.

      I would take this to mean that girls and Chinese are scoring higher than their IQ would indicate on these tests because of higher conscientiousness. Do we agree on that? If the black groups are outscoring their IQ scores then I would expect them to be doing so by being more conscientious than the whiter groups they’re being compared to. Is this the position held by Phlebas? And if high black conscientiousness is not the factor enabling this group to outscore their IQs, then what is?

      • Here is Gottfredson’s discussion:
        “If we posit that group mean differences in IQ are responsible in whole or part for the “achievement gap,” we can estimate a range within which observed dach should fall for a given dIQ. The maximum possible achievement gap owing to IQ simply mirrors the IQ gap itself: so, if Group A’s observed dIQ is .85, then the largest dach we would expect for that group in math or reading is also .85.

        What is the minimum achievement gap we should expect a given IQ gap to create, all else equal? We might expect achievement gaps to be smaller when g accounts for less of the variability among individuals in school achievement. For example, the average correlation between IQ and spelling is only .42 but for math it is .63 (Column 2 in Table 3), so we might expect black-white achievement gaps to be smaller in spelling than math. By this reasoning, minimum expected gap in spelling and math could obtained by multiplying a group’s dIQ (say, 1.0) by IQ’s correlations with spelling (.42) and math (.63)—the predicted minima thus being .42 and .63.”

        So, yes, Chinese who are said to be about .3 SD above Whites, score in excess of their predicted maximum by .35 SD (math+reading). Likewise girls who are said to be about 0 SD above boys, score in excess of their predicted maximum by about the same. So, by Gottfredson’s formula, taking this into account, we might conclude that the Black African-White UK gap could be about (0 + 0.35)/0.7 = .5 SD, which would be consistent with some of the data points that I located:
        http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/screen-shot-2012-02-07-at-2-38-14-pm.png

  19. Were you correct about the tests being “sufficiently dumbed down,” then we would expect to see (1) the variance reduced or (2) the g-loadings, relative to equivalent US tests, reduced or (3) the heritabilities reduced. Neither are. I’ve already debunked this debunking. So what explains the lack of difference above?

    Sorry, but I have very good reason for saying that the tests are dumbed down – I know they are dumbed down because I’ve seen numerous old and new British state exam papers. This screens off (at least from my perspective) any convoluted statistical argument claiming to demonstrate otherwise.

    If you don’t believe me, you might ponder wherefore all of these pages exist.

    Basically, I’m unable to find the 2nd+ generation g scores for ages >7 which I need to soundly put this issue to rest. But you’re unable to explain the lack of math and reading achievement etc., differences, given their heritabilities, g loadings, and the variance. One of your (and Stats’) complaint is that I’m not properly weighing the global evidence. Again, I am arguing that Lynn’s 50/50 hereditarian hypothesis is falsified by a criteria that he and others have given. Quote:

    “If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified. Those who maintain that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between the races are urged to attempt this task. (Lynn, 2010. Consistency of race differences in intelligence over millennia: A comment on Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan).”

    I’ve been trying to nudge you towards recognising the most important difference in our opinions, which is perceptual. You regard anything “statistical” as “scientific” – I regard *uncontrolled* experiments, when masquerading as or being treated as science, as cargo cult science.

    The results of an experiment in physics are conclusive – unless there is a mistake in the experiment or a freak result (in anticipation of which it may be wise to defy surprising data at least until the experiment is repeated), the experiment measures precisely one thing, and demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt a fact about this thing.

    On the other hand, it is not well to treat uncontrolled experiments, like the results of an IQ test, in this same conclusive manner – as an enlightened reading of the Feynman piece should attest. To failure to recognise this is a big mistake of 20th century thinking, not your personal mistake. Even moreso is it foolish to treat manifestly untrustworthy statistics, like these GCSE results into which you read so much, as a final word.

    Therefore, I disagree that Britain is demonstrably “a multiracial society in which these race differences in intelligence are absent”. This would only be a reasonable conclusion if the GCSE statistics in question were of genuinely scientific weight. As it is, I’m far more inclined to say that these statistics are refuted by the weight of extant evidence in favour of ethnic intelligence differences, than vice versa.

    Crazy me for taking him literally. And crazy me for using test results as evidence, when in all other instances they are used so.

    And to restate, two wrongs don’t make a right. Arguments should stand on their own merit, not by dint of the fact that some other misguided person used arguments of a similar nature.

    I guess, by your reading, the British have found highly g-loaded tests which shows no “adverse impact,” despite g differences. This is somewhat surprising, given the large body of evidence showing that g differences lead to differences on g loaded tests in proportion to these differences. How does that body of evidence weigh in?

    If the differences in the GCSE statistics we’ve been shown were actually in proportion to “g”, then (for example) females wouldn’t clearly outscore males on every measure.

    Random Human: It’s true that the tests show girls outscoring boys and the Chinese vastly outscoring everyone else. I think we all agree that this does not accurately reflect innate IQ differences between the respective groups. The normal hereditarian position is that boys are as smart as girls and that East-Asians are only modestly smarter than most of the other groups in question.

    I would take this to mean that girls and Chinese are scoring higher than their IQ would indicate on these tests because of higher conscientiousness. Do we agree on that? If the black groups are outscoring their IQ scores then I would expect them to be doing so by being more conscientious than the whiter groups they’re being compared to. Is this the position held by Phlebas? And if high black conscientiousness is not the factor enabling this group to outscore their IQs, then what is?

    This, more or less. I must admit that the idea that African immigrants are relatively conscientious is merely a surmise, although there are some obvious reasons why this might be the case. Perhaps there is after all a small (if not “super-duper”) selection effect, and this, and that. Who knows?

    The point is, this evidence based on school tests is so leaky and infirm that insofar as it contradicts existing high-quality evidence concerning ethnic intelligence differences, the error must be assumed to be in it rather than elsewhere – whatever that error might actually be. Chuck describes this response as “rationalization” – but it seems to me that if he serves up evidence that’s full of holes, he can’t expect other people to try to make it float.

    • Okay, so maybe there’s not one “super-duper” explanation but a few little things that add up. Let’s say that UK blacks are somewhat IQ-selected and somewhat conscientiousness-selected, compared to their background groups. The tests are not super-duper g-loaded and maybe the results are affected by different drop-out rates and maybe someone fudged some data at some point and maybe there’s something wrong which no-one has yet thought of. I don’t know. It’s possible. It doesn’t look like a great case unless your prior for “no significant gap” is very low to begin with, which it plainly is for Phlebas. I remain on the fence for now.

      • Random human, that’s almost a fair summation.

        I’ve commented a little here because I heard that this blog was causing a stir amongst “HBD”-types regarding negro intelligence. Therefore (HBD being what it is) I’ve assumed that people who have a strong prior belief in low negro intelligence have been finding Chuck’s arguments persuasive – I’ve endeavoured to dissuade them of this.

        It isn’t just that there are numerous plausible explanations for the apparently anomalous small gap in school test results, but that the evidence that Chuck has assembled is notably susceptible to such explanations – it doesn’t nail down its target by excluding these confounding factors, and therefore is much less persuasive than it would otherwise be. It is not merely social science, towards which skepticism is due in general, but in my opinion social science done badly, which renders the conclusions thereof even less compelling.

        I accept that on balance, the evidence that Chuck has assembled is extremely weak evidence in disfavour of the negro-European intelligence gap – so as you say, if someone’s prior is for a small gap, then their posterior after reviewing this evidence probably ought to be for a very slightly smaller gap.

  20. A lot to digest here.

    Stats analysis is not my forte, but as a Brit, one thing that immediately occurs is that the education system in our country has been tweaked to favour certain desired outcomes. For instance, GCSEs themselves were brought in to replace GCE & CSEs as they were thought to be ‘fairer’ to certain groups. Boys always excelled at GCE, due to studying hard when the final exam loomed. But now that their replacement GCSEs demand a consistent level of work throughout the year this has changed. The new exams seems to favour both girls and those whose parents are more invested in the education process (the middle classes). Working class kids are not likely to generally receive the consistent support needed to have them complete countless pieces of course work, much of which is done through homework. Therefore this would account for the class difference and not the racial difference so much, at least regarding GCSEs.

  21. X :
    Chuck you could email the company themselves here:
    http://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/
    Ask them if they have CAT data for older age groups. Just don’t mention anything about hbd or hereditary hypothesis!
    The genetic hypothesis hasn’t been taken seriously in the UK, precisely because of data like this. What modest gaps exist at age 11 can easily be explained by other factors. It’s not like the US where the black-white gap is truly quite robust for some reason, including in tests of academic achievement. Maybe it’s the US that is the true anomaly.

    I tried. You can try yourself. If you get any results let me know.

    No, the UK is the anomaly. Refer here: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/gaps-around-the-world/

      • i posted on this before. they have narrowed somewhat but are still consistent with the type of hypothesis that lynn is proposing e.g., a 50/50 hypothesis.

    • I emailed them and I got a response.

      “This was a particular study and we don’t have any further data for students – it’s based on CAT3 Level D.”

      So that CAT3 study was just based on a particular study. They don’t normally collect data on ethnicity.

      • thanks for the info. I’ve been looking around and I can’t find anything myself. I emailed half a dozen researchers before and came up with zip. everyone was clearly agitated by my inquiry.

  22. I checked out some GCSE data, and it does seem that the test has been getting easier over the years:

    http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Summary%20report%20educational%20outcomes,%20appendices.pdf

    The percentage of student getting 5+ A*-C(including English and Math) has increased from 46.7% in 2007 to 53% in 2010. There is also some outcry over the stricter standards on the latest test:

    “GCSE English pupils ‘unfairly treated’ by grade boundary changes”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/aug/28/gcse-english-exams-schools-results

    It will be intresting to see how this affects results for different ethnicities.

    • If white kids have a significantly higher average IQ than black kids and the tests are easy such that 80% of black kids get 5+A-Cs, then a higher % of white kids should get 5+A-Cs, given the correlation between IQ and % 5+A-Cs GCSE passes. On relatively easy tests, the higher IQ group should still do better. No?

      When will GCSE ethnicity data be released for 2012?

      • “On relatively easy tests, the higher IQ group should still do better.”

        Of course they would and that’s exactly what we see with the Chinese at the top and Roma and Irish Travellers at the bottom.

        The results by ethnicity will be out next year, February or March perhaps? Don’t expect to see any significant changes from last year’s results though. The gap between Black Caribbeans and Whites has all but vanished in recent times when you express it in terms of SD.

        • Actually the news article mentions that minorities and the poor were hit the hardest. This might not mean much anyway, as the subject was reading and it is likely that minorities would have envimental factors stacked against them(maybe they read books in their “own” language, not talking English at home, missing the meaning of a sentence because they do not understand the cultural context, etc).

      • “On relatively easy tests, the higher IQ group should still do better. No?”

        If the tests are easy then diligence becomes more important, as more students will have the capacity to earn higher grades.

        There is some further basis to the notion that GCSEs have become easier, GCSE scores have been rising every year until this latest test, while the PISA scores have been dropping since 2000.

        Personally I would like to see the PISA scores for each ethnicity, but I havent been able to find more than news articles, and none of them mention ethnicity.

        “When will GCSE ethnicity data be released for 2012?”
        Dont know.

        • “If the tests are easy then diligence becomes more important, as more students will have the capacity to earn higher grades.”

          Do you really think blacks are an especially diligent group in the UK? You think they are making up for lower IQs by being more diligent than white kids?

          • “Do you really think blacks are an especially diligent group in the UK?”

            I dont live in the UK so I wouldnt know, but white English working-class culture does have a bad reputation abroad and it would not surprise me if blacks worked harder than them. There is also the fact that girls out-perform boys on these tests, and that gap has also been growing, which leads me to believe that GCSEs have become worse at testing g.

            “You think they are making up for lower IQs by being more diligent than white kids?”

            Maybe, maybe not, thats why I would like to see the PISA scores.

            • “I dont live in the UK so I wouldnt know, but white English working-class culture does have a bad reputation abroad and it would not surprise me if blacks worked harder than them.”

              Gestur, the areas where blacks live in the UK are often among the most run down, scary to go to, high crime and gang violence, high single parent rate etc areas in the city. (See:
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290047/Metropolitan-Police-crime-statistics-reveal-violent-criminals-black–victims.html). Those kind of environments don’t usually have a culture of studiousness and diligence in school.

              Granted, there are some white working class (or ‘underclass’) areas that give them firm competition in terms of how degenerate they are, but they are the worst white areas. There are quite a lot of such areas in the north but there are also lots of decent or even affluent white areas in the north. Overall, those bad white areas do not account for the majority of whites in the country.

              You are comparing blacks, most of whom live in poor, crappy areas, and all whites, including large numbers of middle class whites. I doubt very much that blacks are more diligent as a group.

              • I found this paper:

                https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/uploads/paper/document/70/m.fern_ndez-reino_rc28.pdf

                which shows that socio-economic status has the highest impact on White-British natives:

                “Ethnic minority students also follow this pattern even though their parents’ SES does not seem to have an
                impact as strong as for White-British natives (see table 1.2). In fact, the ratio of students in the highest
                SES category to those in the third on achievement is 2.3 for White-British but only around 1.5 for Indians,
                Black-Caribbean and Black-Africans, and 1.4 for Bangladeshis”

                • Intrestingly the White-White/Black achievement gap follows the hereditarian hypothesis, but there is not much of a gap between Whites and Black Africans except on the third SES tier..

                • More evidence that Blacks work harder:

                  “The proportion of parents that have paid for private
                  lessons outside school is higher for ethnic minorities than natives, particularly for Indians and Black-
                  Africans. Moreover, the proportion of parents that always makes sure their son/daughter have done the
                  homework is also higher for minorities (59% of Pakistani, 54% of Black-African, 53% of Bangladeshi
                  and Indians, 51% of Black-Caribbean parents compared to 43% of White-British parents).”

                • yeah its possible I suppose. I haven’t got any direct knowledge of what black parents are like or what black kids’ attitudes to education are like. I just assumed they’d be like low SES whites.

      • ” On relatively easy tests, the higher IQ group should still do better. No?”
        Forgot to say that yes the higher IQ group would do better but the gaps become smaller.

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