Monthly Archives: October 2007

The data supports Summers, Pinker and Watson (+ me)

Update, 2011: The original images in this post were apparently lost due to server update…

Oh dear, this is dry stuff, but hopefully at least somewhat important- from the Wikipedia page on Sex and Intelligence:

Deary et al. (2003) performed an analysis of an IQ test administered to almost all children in Scotland at age 11 in 1932 (>80,000).[13] The average IQ scores by sex were 100.64 for girls and 100.48 for boys. The difference in mean IQ was not significant. However, the standard deviation was 14.1 for girls and 14.9 for boys. This difference was statistically significant. In the sample studied, 49.6% are girls and 50.4% are boys. Because of the difference in variance between the sexes, however, girls are in excess by 2% in the middle IQ range of 90–115. At the extreme IQ ranges, 50–60 and 130–140, boys make up 58.6% and 57.7% of the population (gaps of 17.2% and 15.4%) respectively. That is, boys were overrepresented amongst the lowest and highest IQ groups. It is generally observed that males tend to hit the most positive and negative performance results of many tests.

In order to make the point even clearer I made the following plot that shows the ratio of men (and women) with a given IQ based on that data (pink points plot the female ratio).

Sex ratios given IQ
Thus really high IQ people are likely to be men (a sooper genius with an IQ 160 is a man with approximately .7 likelihood as shown by the black circles which represent the ratios for men with a given IQ on the x-axis). However, it is definitely questionable how good that one very old study is. I haven’t seen the IQ test that was used so I can’t honestly say if it seems reliable but based on my personal observations I suspect it wasn’t terribly good and underestimates the real difference between men and women. In addition, as some researchers have noted (Rushton?), it is quite possible that teenage girls have an advantage over teenage boys since they mature faster which might make even the averages different later on.

Anyway, wikipedia quotes a second study which found such differences even in teenagers:

Deary et al. (in press) compared IQ scores from 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings from the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.[14] Siblings were used to control for background factors that differ between families. They describe finding a 1 IQ point sized difference in mean scores favoring males, which was significant in this sample. They describe finding larger differences in variance, with nearly twice as many males as females scoring in the top 2% (the IQ equivalent of scores above 130).

Thus, Wikipedia is on the side of Larry Summers. Based on hard data, women are a minority in the group of cognitively gifted people. Also, less women are total morons, but in a modern worldIsuspect a single genius can accomplish much more good than a single moron can cause damageasa single technologicalbreakthroughcreatedbya genius of onemancanbeusedbymillions to make the world more prosperous. In addition, geniuses probably favor positive-sum-cooperation while people of average or less than average intellect seem to prefer zero-sum competition.Thishoweverhasmademethinkthatthecurrentpractice
offavoringwomeninwesternsocietiesmighthave
some grave consequences (also the practice of supporting retards but not gifted people common inpublicschoolsin many places). If the few highly gifted men are discriminated against, societies suffer. Of course, the gifted people might manage to prosper even if they are discriminated against, but that doesn’t mean any artificial obstacles in their path won’t be highly expensive for human well-being if their existence means less time to spend on doing some real work proper for a genius.

Report This Post

Still more on the Dr. Watson case

Steve Sailer is definitely one of the more informed and honest writers on the subject so let me point out his articleJamesD. Watson-AModernGalileo on VDare.

Sailer rightly compares the case with that of Larry Summers but notes that this one is even worse in some respect:

Watson probably wasn’t terribly surprised by the paroxysm of political correctness that has engulfed Britain. But he must have been shocked to be immediately suspended by his own ungrateful, cowardly Board of Trustees at the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which he has led for 39 years, first as director, then president, then chancellor, and which he built up into one of the world’s leading molecular biology research institutes. (In fact, the Ph.D. program at that Long Island institution is known as the Watson School of Biological Sciences!)

Then Sailer goes to some more detailaboutWatsonshowinghisintellectalsooutsideresearch and notes:

So suspending Watson from participation in the great achievement of the second half of his life was an especially cruel degradation of such a social man.

This may help explain why Watson wasn’t quite as explicitly courageous last week as he probably assumed he would be when he wrote this in his new book about the similar ritual denunciation of Summers in 2005:

“If I were still a member of the faculty [of Harvard], the number of tenured scientists standing visibly behind the president in this matter would have literally doubled.”

I found that last part quite hilarious though I suppose it’s more of an indication of a really grave situation in that supposed citadel of enlightenment if only Steven Pinker was knowledgeable and courageous enough to back Summers.

And finally when it comes to Watson’s recent remarks about him being gloomy about the future of Africabecauseouraidisbasedonincorrectassumptions, let me link to my older blog post about a strategy to really help black Africans and also enjoy a little while helping them – white men should help the African gene pool umm.. to evolve fast. I bet if I was writing with my own name and had a noteworthy positioninsomeorganization I would bepublicly burned at stake. Still, I stand behind my words at least anonymously for now.

Report This Post

James Watson does it again

Oh my, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA is once again creating controversy with his politically incorrect ideas. Once again I have tomostly agree with him (though I’m not absolutely sure about the quantifier all in “all our social policies”):

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times 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 said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

But of course the rabid PC-crowd doesn’t wantto allow such rare sanity to go unpunished and there always seem to be someone defending the politically correct delusions:

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: “This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

That’s of course simply ridiculous considering all the many IQ-studies that indicate otherwise even ignoring other kind of evidence. Now if sanity would prevail Dr Rose would be out of jobrealsoon but somehow I don’t think that’s likely.

UPDATE: And now Watson has apparently caved in under social pressure and apologized. Some commentary provided by Jared Taylor is also available. That’s sad but hardly any real reason to think he wasn’t speaking honestlybasedonhisscientificunderstanding the first time.

Report This Post

Birth error payout madness in the UK

Lots of things I could write about but since I’m pretty sure not many people will make the same remark that I do after reading this news item on how “the price paid by the NHS for deliveries going catastrophically wrong has risen 59 per cent to 259m” I’d better note I think such payouts are pure madness.

The size of the payout ” enough to hire 1,000 extra consultants ” reflects the enormous and growing burden of medical negligence on the health service, which is diverting scarce resources from patient care.

And why are the payouts so big? Because they reflect the cost of supporting possibly severely disabled human life for decades which could easily add up to something like 5M. But why do people in the first place keep them alive when that money could be used to have healthy children if only the severely disabled ones were allowed to die (or euthanized painlessly)? Of course the medical staff should be responsible if they
commit serious errors,
but they should not be responsible for the stupidity of parents or society if they don’t
allow euthanizing such disabled babies. Something like five million spent on caring for the disabled child quite likely cost lives somewhere else in one way or another and probably more than one life and I hate to say it but those lives may be more valuable than a life of a severely retarded kid.

Again, I think Christian values are partially responsible for this madness.

Report This Post