Many people who are uneducated about the matter of cognitive abilities tests may say certain things such as “IQ tests are biased towards white males”.”IQ tests don’t test anything of worth” or “IQ is just a number and doesn’t mean anything in life”. All of these are untruths. I will show in this article how and why those aren’t true, as well as showing that IQ is one of the best predictors of success in life.
“IQ Tests Are Biased Towards White Males”
This is my favorite one from IQ deniers. They seem to think that by saying tests are biased towards white males, especially those from the West, that it will invalidate over 100 years of IQ testing and any and all racial gaps concerning them. It doesn’t work like that.
Many deniers may say “They’re (IQ tests) biased towards white males because there are certain words on the test that underprivileged peoples don’t get to learn”. They may say that due to IQ tests having certain words on them that aren’t taught to them in their environments, that they’re biased and don’t accurately assess black American’s intelligence.
But Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein say in The Bell Curve that those words that only a privileged person would know, which, if I remember the example from the book correctly was something to do with yachts, was removed from IQ tests decades ago, so those points are moot whenever someone brings them up.
If IQ tests were biased towards white males, then why do Ashkenazi Jews score between 107-115? Why do Indian American Immigrants score 112? Why do East Asians score 106?(pg 236) These are questions that people never seem to answer, because it seems that all they were told is that the tests for cognitive ability are biased towards the majority, when no matter where IQ tests are carried out on East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews and Indian immigrants, they score higher than whites every time. How is that explained by a test bias towards the ones it was supposedly invented to assess who was superior in intelligence?
Two years after The Bell Curve came out, a paper was published called Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which corroborated the findings in The Bell Curve. To quote from the publication:
Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.
Right here, from the publication from 52 signatories from the leading researchers in the field of intelligence all say that IQ tests are not culturally biased at all to those who don’t speak the language, which of course means non-white populations as well as white populations who don’t speak English.
If they were biased towards white males, then we can say that if we put those from different races into white homes, test their IQs at the beginning of the study, and assess IQ at adulthood, we’d be able to see if it was true, if IQ tests were really biased against other races. Well, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study happened (pg 256), and the SD gap literally stayed the same at 1.2 SDs.
What the Minnesota Study also tells me is this: it’s clear as day that black mothers are not conducive to an intellectual environment. Why, if black mothers were, would they need to be taken out as a variable and have the black kids be raised by white women? That, in my opinion, should end the debate right there. Seeing as the mother’s IQ is the best predictor of the child’s. Those mixed-race white and black kids with white mothers have higher IQs than those with black mothers. Because the prenatal environment is important to a developing and growing fetus. This should end the debate right where it is, but instead, we still have people who want to push that IQ tests are biased towards white males, which I have shown that it’s not the case at all.
Finally, to quote from the paper Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, which was funded by the APA Taskforce, headed by Neisser:
Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans.
“IQ Tests Don’t Test Anything of Worth”
This is another denialist tactic that those who wish to deny the worth of the IQ test. What they measure are short-term memory, verbal ability, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial reasoning. How anyone can believe that they don’t test anything of worth, even after hearing about what it does test is beyond me. I touched on success in life in regards to IQ in this article. IQ tests do mean a lot to life success, along with personality traits (coming in a future post).
There isn’t that high of a correlation with IQ and monetary success (around .33), so you’re going to find those who have high IQs and not have attained a lot of wealth, whereas you’ll also find those with lower IQs who have attained wealth, due in part to certain personality characteristics, all of which are at least 50 percent heritable.
The table above (pg 322, The Bell Curve), shows how after controlling for IQ (IQ 100), that blacks and Hispanics have substantially higher probabilities than whites of being in high IQ occupations (which I would reason that’s due to Affirmative Action).
(pg 323) After controlling for IQ, wage differences almost disappear! If America were so racist, why then, do blacks and ‘Latinos’, who are matched for IQ, then make the same amount of money? Almost as if IQ is one of the best predictors of monetary success in life.
(pg 326) After controlling for IQ, poverty differentials decrease by three-quarters for both ethnic groups. Why is that? Because, as I’m showing with all of these examples, when matching for IQ, gaps substantially shrink, disappear entirely or have those ethnic groups actually have more success than whites when matched for IQ, proves that IQ is one of the most important things in life, due to those with high IQs being able to reason better than those with lower IQs.
(pg 338) This is one of my favorites. Because we know that average IQ for a criminal is 85, even after all variables are controlled for, the IQ for criminals is still at 85, showing that low cognitive ability is a cause for being incarcerated as well. Showing that the gap disappears by almost three quarters shows, in my opinion, that the remaining incarcerated blacks may have the 2-repeat MAOA-L gene, as well as higher testosterone, are the cause for the remaining quarter who do get incarcerated.
Clearly, IQ tests are so biased that they show all of these things disappear or even reverse with certain variables when IQs are matched at 100 with ethnicity.
So to those who say “IQ is just a number which doesn’t mean anything in life”, you’d have to explain how these things happen when matched for IQ. Did those who get high scores not feel the effects of so-called white supremacy?
I’m sure we’ve heard of the B.I.T.C.H. IQ test before. Which supposedly tests ‘black cultural homogeneity’, but it’s just nonsense, as evidenced by:
Stone fox means:
T. C. B. means:
“Bo Diddley” is a:
Hattie Mae Johnson is on the Country. She has four children and her husband is now in jail for non-support, as he was unemployed and was not able to give her any money. Her welfare check is now $286 per month. Last night she went out with the highest player in town. If she got pregnant, then nine months from now how much more will her welfare check be?
“Money don’t get everything it’s true.”
These are all actual questions on this ‘so-called IQ test’. What a joke right?
Those who say that IQ tests are biased towards white males, or anyone affluent for that matter, have no idea what they’re talking about. None of what they say has any basis in fact and is clear wishful thinking. If IQ tests were so biased, other races/ethnicity wouldn’t score higher than whites. If IQ tests were so biased, why would those blacks and ‘Latinos’ who score at 100 show certain gaps closing, closed and even had an advantage over whites when matched for IQ (which was due in part to Affirmative Action, obviously)?
Those who say that IQ tests are biased are true ideologues and those views have no basis in reality.
For those who are interested, Arthur Jensen wrote a whole book on this subject.
[…] know that their IQs are innate and that when black and ‘Latino’ IQs are matched at 100, many racial differences disappear. So we can say, with reason, that if a black or ‘Latino’ is poor, they have a higher […]
[…] As I have covered here before, people will do anything they can to deny the validity of IQ tests. However, their explanations cut it. […]
Here’s a page where the blogger links studies that try to take on twin and adoption studies for what they show about race with IQ:
What do you make of it?
It’s a joke. I’ll make a reply to that in the future.
[…] difference in IQ is genetic in origin. IQ tests are also not “flawed” or “biased“, as all of the variables that continually get brought up have been controlled for, and […]
[…] Commenter Salger brought this article to my attention, in which an environmentalist in the B-W IQ debate regurgitates the same old and boring long-refuted studies and the same long-refuted researchers, to attempt to prove that the gap in IQ is purely environmental in nature. I have written on this before, so his reasoning that there is “weak evidence” and “a weak argument on race and IQ” is clearly wrong, as we know the studies and researchers he cites have been disproven. Steele then references another discussion he had on the black-white IQ gap, speaking about people being “uninformed” about a position while arguing it. […]
There is a difference in brain size too. Asians have the largest brains and are the least violent, followed by whites and then blacks.
Blacks also have smaller brains than Asians or whites. http://spawktalk.blogspot.com/2014/07/to-zaunstar-on-race-intelligence-and.html
Of course. Latitude has an effect on brain size as well.
The correlation between brain size and IQ is .44 as said by Rushton. I would say that bigger brains lead to a propensity for less violence, as well as more “moral reasoning“.
Those with smaller brains are more violent than those with bigger brains. This has to do with a smaller brain bring more archaic and thus, a higher propensity for violence is seen.
Men with lower intelligence (more often than not, men with smaller brains) may be more likely to resort to evolutionarily familiar means of competition for resources and mating opportunities, and not to fully comprehend the consequences of their criminal behavior.
Also check out my post on black crime, physical attractiveness and testosterone.
The notion that blacks have smaller brains than whites is absurd. It’s simply not supported by the facts. Nevertheless, you are unwittingly suggesting that black people with large brains (they do exist) are smarter than white people with small brains (they also exist).
We are talking averages in brain size and scores derived on IQ tests.
I no longer believe the brain size and IQ correlation means anything.
Studies of people with TBI at all ages pretty much confirm it.
Well you certainly are extremely rare among so-called race realists if you’re willing to re-evaluate your views and evolve away from ridiculous racialist pseudoscience.
Look, I know you’re a smart guy. What you should do is renounce this inane ideology altogether and serve as a beacon for all the other race-realists that are thinking about leaving the cult. Sort of like former white supremacists that renounce racial hatred and help others to do the same.
Over the past year I’ve rely challenged my views. You should check out my articles on testosterone, penis size, brain size and IQ, etc. I’ve gone through a few view changes. I still believe the races differ in average IQ but I don’t believe brain size causes it.
It’s hard to let go of beliefs you hold and have vested a ton of energy into. Though I’ve found it’s easier to change my views if I read novel information on my own rather than hear it from someone else.
Testosterone isn’t as high as HBDers claim in blacks compared to whites.
Testosterone isn’t the scary hormone it’s made out to be, on the contrary. It’s vital for homeostasis and normal functioning.
East Asians have higher levels of testosterone and are more like to have the MAOA allele. I’m going write piece on MAOA and child abuse and testosterone, race, and prostate cancer to put some myths to bed for good.
But that doesn’t mean I disavow HBD, on the contrary. But there is not bias in mental testing. Numerous studies attest to this.
In regards to IQ, you should check out this review on transracial adoption studies that was just published 6 months ago. Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?
Here is the abstract:
Some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptees’ IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by Whites have higher IQs than Western Whites, and that White adoptees raised by Whites have higher IQs than Black adoptees raised by Whites. Those publications suggest that this is because genetic differences give East Asians a higher mean IQ than Whites, and Whites a higher mean IQ than Blacks. This paper proposes a parsimonious alternative explanation: the apparent IQ advantage of East Asian adoptees is an artifact caused by ignoring the Flynn effect and adoption’s beneficial effect on IQ, and most of the IQ disadvantage of Black adoptees disappears when one allows for attrition in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and acknowledges the results of other studies. Diagnosing these artifacts suggests a nil hypothesis: East Asian, White, and Black adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, hinting at a minimal role for genes in racial IQ differences.
And from the final paragraph of the paper:
As well as correcting specific claims, my re-analyses enable a fresh comparison of the hereditarian model to the data. Provisionally, the hereditarian model fails to fit the data when one applies the level of standard applied by hereditarians such as Rushton, Jensen and Lynn. For instance, Rushton and Jensen  (p. 276) wrote that “[t]he culture-only model cannot explain” the “finding” that “Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points higher than their adoptive national norms”. That comparison was fallacious because it neglected the Flynn effect and the unrepresentative environments in which adoptees live. Allowing for both effects, I estimate that East Asian adoptees tend to have IQs about equal to the relevant norms, and possibly a little below. This is what a nil hypothesis, and presumably a “culture-only model”, would predict, but it violates the hereditarian expectation of superior East Asian IQ. Contrary to Rushton and Jensen’s  (p. 276) allegation that “support for the hereditarian model again comes from adding the East Asian data to the mix”, the hereditarian model has at least as much trouble with the East Asian data as with the Black data. The model is not definitively ruled out; the data are too weak for that. However, a hypothesis that fits these data, at least as well, is the nil hypothesis: adoptees of different races would have similar IQs if raised in the same environment. To the extent that the nil hypothesis is true, genes are not so likely to be the main cause of racial IQ differences.
I’m still ruminating on this, but it really has me thinking hard. I’m going to write about this review eventually.
LMAO! My God, you are moron
Who are you speaking to?
I am referring to Chinedu.
Why is he a moron then? Chinedu may be into politics but such as a lot of hereditarians
What exactly are you thinking so hard about? Are you rethinking your position on the racial IQ disparities being (predominantly) genetic, or at least the quality of the adoption studies mentioned in the abstract of the review you provided for Chinedu? I’d like your clarification on the matter, out of curiosity, of course.
Yea I’m questioning the conclusions from Rushton and Jensen on the East Asian adoption studies. Correcting for the Flynn Effect gives them IQs at the European average, or slightly below. When the Minnesota study is corrected for attrition, the gap is about 2.5 points which could be measurement error. But the other studies that Thomas references have small ns (Moore 1986) or have been severely criticized (the German WWII study).
I don’t think the quality is too high in those studies but as people like to say, ‘it’s the best we got.’
Low IQ Black achieve more than low IQ Whites so perhaps IQ testing has some flaws.