A Nobel Prize winner Dr James Watson has got himself into hot water with the PC brigade by suggesting that there is a connection between race, national wealth and intelligence. Predictably this has got the shouts of “Racist” ringing loudly, although just as predictably there has been no evidence offered against his comments other than that they "were deeply offensive" or “irrational prejudices”.
The remarks in an interview with The Sunday Times, were that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". He went on to say he hoped everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".
Oddly, there is in fact considerable, if controversial, evidence on the connection between national wealth, race and intelligence, and the efforts to refute this are often based, not on the science (such as it is), but on prejudices against it being true. The fear that we do have inherent strengths or weaknesses related to our ‘race’, is because this would fly against certain doctrines that are currently fashionable, not least of which is that everyone is the same. Strangely, when it comes to physical attributes such as 100 metre running, where black athletes clearly have the natural physical advantages, that's somehow OK for white liberals to discuss, but when it comes to natural cerebral advantages that's not acceptable.
There are those who propose that, as there is only one race who simply have different skin colours, there can be no other physical difference such as running ability, or natural intelligence differences, this despite that fact that even within one race type, there are accepted intelligence differences that are tested for during schooling (some leave school not able to read or write, while others end up as nuclear scientists ... i.e. they are not the same intelligence). Only when skin colour is involved, illogically this same acceptance of possible differences no longer applies somehow.
Perhaps the most compelling modern evidence of the relation between wealth, intelligence and race, is the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Dr’s Lynn and Vanhanen in 2002. The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in average national IQ. Predictably this has been criticised, but when you look at the richest countries, the median wealth countries, the rapidly developing countries, and the undeveloped or broken countries there are 'racial' differences in the composition of these countries, and one ethnic group tends to populate most of the latter slots.
For Example I have listed the categories in the order we popularly consider wealthy countries or regions, and placed the IQ figures in brackets.
Rich:
North America (100) / Western Europe (100) / Japan (105):
Median:
Hong Kong (107) / Australia (100) / New Zealand (100) /Argentina (100) / Taiwan (105) / S Korea (105)
Rapidly Developing:
China (105) / India (100) / Pakistan (100) / Eastern Europe (100) / *Brazil (85 - 100)
*Brazil, has such wide gaps between the wealth and education of the rich and poor populations that one part is high IQ and developed, while there is a large part of the population who are not. These poorer communities are usually of native Amerindian or African descent.
Underdeveloped / Poor with slow growth:
**Iran (85) / Arab countries (85) / Latin America exc Brazil (85)
** Iran has made big efforts to improve the education system since the figures were collated, and should be in the rapidly developing group quite soon, especially if it can stop the sanctions.
Poorest by PCGDP:
Sub Saharan Africa (70)
The IQ figures were based on calculations of average IQ scores for 81 countries, based on their analysis of reports published from each country itself. So it was hard to criticise them as inherently ‘racist’, especially as they clearly showed that Orientals were more intelligent than those of European descent. However there was no consistency in the methodology of how these results were derived in each country, and this makes them less robust for comparisons, than results obtained via a consistent methodology.
The 87 countries listed by IQ are:
Update: Further thoughts on wealth creation here.
 |
| Some People Think Intelligence Tests Are Unfair ~ Usually Those Who Do Badly. |
The remarks in an interview with The Sunday Times, were that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". He went on to say he hoped everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".
Oddly, there is in fact considerable, if controversial, evidence on the connection between national wealth, race and intelligence, and the efforts to refute this are often based, not on the science (such as it is), but on prejudices against it being true. The fear that we do have inherent strengths or weaknesses related to our ‘race’, is because this would fly against certain doctrines that are currently fashionable, not least of which is that everyone is the same. Strangely, when it comes to physical attributes such as 100 metre running, where black athletes clearly have the natural physical advantages, that's somehow OK for white liberals to discuss, but when it comes to natural cerebral advantages that's not acceptable.
There are those who propose that, as there is only one race who simply have different skin colours, there can be no other physical difference such as running ability, or natural intelligence differences, this despite that fact that even within one race type, there are accepted intelligence differences that are tested for during schooling (some leave school not able to read or write, while others end up as nuclear scientists ... i.e. they are not the same intelligence). Only when skin colour is involved, illogically this same acceptance of possible differences no longer applies somehow.
Perhaps the most compelling modern evidence of the relation between wealth, intelligence and race, is the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Dr’s Lynn and Vanhanen in 2002. The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in average national IQ. Predictably this has been criticised, but when you look at the richest countries, the median wealth countries, the rapidly developing countries, and the undeveloped or broken countries there are 'racial' differences in the composition of these countries, and one ethnic group tends to populate most of the latter slots.
For Example I have listed the categories in the order we popularly consider wealthy countries or regions, and placed the IQ figures in brackets.
Rich:
North America (100) / Western Europe (100) / Japan (105):
Median:
Hong Kong (107) / Australia (100) / New Zealand (100) /Argentina (100) / Taiwan (105) / S Korea (105)
Rapidly Developing:
China (105) / India (100) / Pakistan (100) / Eastern Europe (100) / *Brazil (85 - 100)
*Brazil, has such wide gaps between the wealth and education of the rich and poor populations that one part is high IQ and developed, while there is a large part of the population who are not. These poorer communities are usually of native Amerindian or African descent.
Underdeveloped / Poor with slow growth:
**Iran (85) / Arab countries (85) / Latin America exc Brazil (85)
** Iran has made big efforts to improve the education system since the figures were collated, and should be in the rapidly developing group quite soon, especially if it can stop the sanctions.
Poorest by PCGDP:
Sub Saharan Africa (70)
 |
| IQ and PCGDP |
The IQ figures were based on calculations of average IQ scores for 81 countries, based on their analysis of reports published from each country itself. So it was hard to criticise them as inherently ‘racist’, especially as they clearly showed that Orientals were more intelligent than those of European descent. However there was no consistency in the methodology of how these results were derived in each country, and this makes them less robust for comparisons, than results obtained via a consistent methodology.
The conclusion; Well over half (about 58 per cent), of the differences in national wealth, can be explained in terms of national differences in average intelligence. Each IQ point above 70 in the national average, was worth about $850 in PCGDP (Per Capita GDP). However Black Africa occupies most of the bottom positions. White descent countries currently hold the top slots, but the Orientals will soon occupy the top slots, if IQ figures are correct. Note: The criticisms of the methodology used to arrive at the figures are at the bottom of this link.
So on the basis of these figures, there appears to be a definite correlation between Race and Wealth. Which seems to prove that Dr Watson has a something of a point if you accept that economic success is a measure of national intelligence, and this is evident even when you disregard the disputed IQ figures. It’s hard not to look at the history of the Sub Saharan African states and the Caribbean countries, since the end of the colonial era, and not suspect that there are reasons why they have gone backward in development and wealth over the last 40 years.
The authors also proposed that there is a positive feedback mechanism at work that means that the poorer a country is, the lower its average IQ, and the lower its IQ, the lower its PCGDP. However this doesn't reasonably explain the Oriental or South Asian nations rise from absolute poverty levels that were worse than Black Africa in the 1950’s, but who are now three or four times more wealthy than them now.
 |
| Global IQ Scores |
This is one of those subjects that the PC and chattering classes refuse to discuss rationally, and that the rest of us feel has some possible validity, but have been told we can’t discuss. Our Victorian ancestors considered this was a valid opinion, and it's no secret that the Chinese and Japanese both considered other races to be inferior (including the Europeans). Even now Arabs enslave and treat black Muslims as inferiors e.g. Darfur.
I don't know if in actuality there is a difference, or if its more cultural i.e. those cultures or sub-cultures that don't value education, score poorly in tests, and in the long term in economic performance, but the fact that we aren't allowed to discuss if there is any differences, is enough for me to wonder if there might be.
The 87 countries listed by IQ are:
Update: Further thoughts on wealth creation here.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
First,
ReplyDeleteJewish people are the most intelligent. They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize's and they have a small population of only 14 million. So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence. The other races having huge numbers and such small contributions.
Second,
IQ tests, test intellectual conformity, not creativity and originality. This would explain the Asian high IQ's. They as a people are the ultimate conformists.
In IQ tests there is typically only one answer to the problem. That problem being a social conformity to reason. But everyone knows that Genius's and all of the greatest developments in the world are not the product of conformity. Conformity never breeds creativity. We can see this in the lack of influence the Asian population has had on Science. China used to be called the "sick man" of Asia. Their population is massive and their contribution to innovation is almost nil. We can see this lack of originality in their adoptation of European philosophies, I.e. Communism.
Friedrich Nietzsche and other Philosophers have critized Asians. Nietsche used the words "Pallid osification" to describe Orientals.
Pallid: lacking sparkle or liveliness.
Osification: The process of becoming set and inflexible in behavior, attitudes, and actions. Inflexible conformity, rigid unthinking acceptance of social conventions.
The reality is Asian people have yet to understand that laws and rules are arbitrary. Europeans make the rules and Asian's follow them.
It also doesn't make sense that Asian's are considered smart because of the fact that they have destroyed their own countries. This is due to over-population and their basic lack of enviromental understanding.
It is also common scientific fact that women who have many children are ignorant, and those who have less children are more intelligent. This has already been proven in studies. So it seems strange to say that Asians are smart when the obviousness of their backwards countries, and medieval lifestyle makes them contrary to that premise.
Europeans have the most advanced civilizations and every other race has yet to meet these levels other than the Japanese. The Japanese only being good at copying other people's inventions and making them better. Other than that their original creativity is lacking as well. They took American cars and made them better. They took the German camera and made it better. And they took German steel and made it better. Otherwise the greatest advances still come from Europeans and Jews. Other than that the Orientals have yet to produce an Einstein or a Thomas Edison.
When it comes to Black people. It makes sense that they have low intellectual comformity, I.e. IQ tests. They are far too creative to be trapped in this unoriginal form of conditioning. You can tell their creative capacity in their athletics, music, dance, and the way they talk. They by far exceed the Asiatic races in these areas. Being better singers, musicians ect. Blacks far exceed Asians in emotive expression. In all of North America there is only one or two famous high-paid Asian actors.
Reality, Europeans rule the world and they have allowed others to exist only out of desire for economic bennifet. They, (Europeans) are also the physically strongest, winning the Strongest Man competitions again and again.
The greater the conformity, the weaker the race. Thus we see the races as they are today. The wild animal being bred out of man, and the physically impotent, conformist thriving.
Otherwise "Group psychology" is the most destructive thing in the world. All these stereotypes are false when it comes to the individual. Individualism is the most important thing for this time. All countries, Religions, groups need to dissolve for man to live in peace.
www.truenewspaper.blogspot.com
Very well said. I totally agree.
DeleteI would suggest that, although the evidence is there that there are differences in races, it may not be entirely down to native intelligence, and that cultural differences may have a part to play.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, because its a 'non subject' (1984 style) in the West, its impossible to determine if these differnces account for the behavioural, and educational performances, of different immigrant groups into the West.
A late thought on this subject ...
ReplyDeleteMany immigrant groups perform differently when they arrive in the West. Children from Oriental and some south Asian groups, do very well at school and rise to the top of exam and test results, even if starting with no language in the countries that they arrive in. e.g. Koreans in the US and Indians in the UK. Other groups do better in some countries than others.
Caribbean children often do well in North America, whereas they have performed poorly in the UK. Latino's have generally not done well in the US, although this seems to vary in relation to their ethnic background .... This all suggests to me, that its cultural influences, rather than environmental, that have the biggest influence on how intelligence is exhibited by groups.
So where the culture of the ethnic group prizes intelligence, the children excel. Where they don't, then the native intelligence is dulled. Again, this can't be proved unless the subject can be discussed rationally and not drowned out by those who fear the discussion taking place.