, , ,

Recently there was an interesting comment posted under the name “Duke of Leinster”:

edumacate yoself pumkin person. if you do, you’ll be the only one in the hbd/iq blogosphere who has.

i’ve been through the hereditiist stage. i’ve outgrown it.
the strawman of hereditists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_social_science_model

there is no “genetic iq”. this way of talking, along with all of behavioral genetics, relies on the P = G + E model. and this model is ABSURD. but it’s the only model which the very limited mathematical understanding of psychologists can deal with.

The cake can’t be sliced. It must be unbaked.

And that’s not just true of putative “psychological traits”. It’s true of cvd and all its risk factors. It’s true for almost every disease. environment OVERWHELMS genetics.


hereditism is exceedingly tiresome. ALL of the people involved in behavioral genetics research are…stupid. that even includes the self-professed liberal Plomin. he has a talk on youtube. it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

one could say all the things which have been said by so many others (rose, kamen, gould, steve jones, etc.) in a polite way…OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. but after a while you discover that hereditists are INCAPABLE of understanding norms of reaction and the absurdity of the P = G + E model.

there’s no polite/civil debate to be had with such people (or with a rock). there’s only—fuck off you’re evil and stupid.

It is true that people with more conservative and politically incorrect views tend to have lower IQ’s, as proven by IQ researchers themselves. There’s also the theory that “genetic IQ”, in the population as a whole, has dropped 14 IQ points since the Victorian era. Put both theories together, and maybe even the greatest politically incorrect minds are not that brilliant.

I have very little science education; most of the knowledge I express here comes from reading the The g Factor by Arthur Jensen, so I’m really not qualified to judge the competence of the HBD community. I do think a lot of them parrot what they read in books by Jensen without having the conceptual understanding to think critically about it and I have noticed that a lot of them lack very basic knowledge of statistics (however statistical illiteracy is extremely common in most academic disciplines, not HBD only).

But realistically, I would estimate that the average HBD scholar (who publishes in peer reviewed journals) has a brilliant IQ of 133 (about average for a tenured professor). On the one hand they believe in HBD which would statistically make them dumber than other scholars, however they are generally much more mathematically sophisticated than most tenured professors so this would negate the HBD factor.

HBD bloggers probably have an average IQ of 124. We know from the more reputable on-line IQ tests that people who are interested in IQ on-line have an average IQ around 115, so those who can actually blog about it are probably (on average) higher than this, but not as high as the HBD scholars who can publish in peer reviewed journals, so 124 is a good estimate. And of course their IQ’s would be normally distributed with some being well above 150 (the brightest hardcore science types who focus on actual genetic research), and some being well below 100 (probably the dullest hardcore racists who are oozing with vitriolic tribalism).

An IQ of 124 is quite high (about the average of a PhD), but keep in mind that IQ is relative to the Western populations that provide the norms and because of dysgenics (including mutation load), general intelligence (the g factor) may have dropped 14 IQ points since the Victorian era. So by Victorian standards, the average HBD blogger has a “g factor” IQ of 110, and their readers average a “g factor” IQ of 101.

So I think we need to start with the basics to make sure everyone (including me) understands basic concepts. In my next post, we will talk about the concept of heritability.