/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9707626
>Sub-S African countries have IQ ranges between <65 to 75.
Fraudulent statistics generated by a eugenicist shill Richard Lynn for political purposes.

Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.

>extrapolating results from the "draw a man" test given to children who had never held a pencil
>children accustomed to having their faces marked for ritual purposes didn't remove the researcher's mark from their face for the mirror test
>taking samples from hospitals for malaria-infected children (protip: malaria is known to cause brain damage in over 50% of victims)
>private school that tested high IQ: rejected because a private school. a private school that tested low IQ scores: representative!
Pic related shows: high IQ = unrepresentative, low IQ = representative. Study methodology or soundness totally irrelevant as long as we get the results we're looking for.

>>9694181
I agree with you completely that psychologists are under immense pressure to produce research agreeable to their funding sources.
Just look at how every single researcher and author who took money from the Pioneer Fund has pushed the same "racial betterment" agenda, even gaming their statistics and data and ignoring contradictory studies and evidence to make their case.

>>9615187
Short answer: no.

The original source is fraudulent statistics generated by a eugenicist shill Richard Lynn for political purposes.

In the 60's, liberals made a big push for blacks to be able to go to the schools their tax dollars helped to fund. There was a strong conservative pushback. It became important to prove that blacks are subhuman to justify their disenfranchisement.

See pic related, from the following metastudy:
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.
Read the whole thing if you want, it's pretty illuminating. Basically with Lynn, high IQ = unrepresentative, low IQ = representative. He even contradicted his own stated selection standards at times. Lynn had responded to other critiques of his studies, but he went silent after this one.

The original source is fraudulent statistics generated by a eugenicist shill Richard Lynn for political purposes.

In the 60's, liberals made a big push for blacks to be able to go to the schools their tax dollars helped to fund. There was a strong conservative pushback. It became important to prove that blacks are subhuman to justify their disenfranchisement.

See pic related, from the following metastudy:
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.
Read the whole thing if you want, it's pretty illuminating. Basically with Lynn, high IQ = unrepresentative, low IQ = representative. He even contradicted his own stated selection standards at times. Lynn had responded to other critiques of his studies, but he went silent after this one.

>>9575308
The original source is fraudulent statistics generated by a eugenicist shill Richard Lynn for political purposes.

In the 60's, liberals made a big push for blacks to be able to go to the schools their tax dollars helped to fund. There was a strong conservative pushback. It became important to prove that blacks are subhuman to justify their disenfranchisement.

See pic related, from the following metastudy:
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80. Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.
Read the whole thing if you want, it's pretty illuminating. Basically with Lynn, high IQ = unrepresentative, low IQ = representative. He even contradicted his own stated selection standards at times. Lynn had responded to other critiques of his studies, but he went silent after this one.

(1/2)

>>9509917
>the raw data
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70.

>>9367130
>samfagging with reddit spacing
Gas yourself OP
>But then I actually went and checked whether I remembered it right and found an alarming number of sources citing most of central and South Africa having an average IQ of less than 65 (which is retarded, no pun intended).
There are also many studies that cite average IQ findings of over 100. You have to choose which studies to include (hopefully based on validity and methodology of the study) and then try to find an aggregated score. The problem is the main bodies of work on the topic assume that "low IQ" = "representative" (pic related) and so are essentially little more than cherrypicked lies.
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80.
>Although this mean IQ is clearly lower than 100, we view it as unsurprising in light of the potential of the Flynn Effect in Africa (Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan, 2010) and common psychometric problems associated with the use of western IQ tests among Africans.

>>9367137
>all those mental contortions
I see, so you're just doing that guy a favor by demanding he debunk his own argument? That's his burden, right? It's definitely not that you don't know how to explain away the peer-reviewed findings that contradict your theory, right?

>>9273445
>buying into debunked bullshit

>>9177850

>>9062647
>the average black IQ is 70
Only according to bogus, stilted meta-studies by Lynn.

>>8983675
>He believes in debunked IQ studies

>>8981002
>>8980994
>we
>muh IQ graphs
>muk kekistan

>>8978678
Not him but here you go.

It's actually comedic how dishonest Lynn is. Pic related. Greatest predictor of a study being considered valid by Lynn: the IQ of the sample. If it's too high, he deems it clearly unrepresentative and discards it so it doesn't skew his results away from the ones he's aiming for.

Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, January–February 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003..
>Discarded a 96 IQ sample because it's from "a fee-paying school", but kept 59 and 72 samples even though they were also from "fee-paying schools".
>Used IQ samples of Senegalese children suffering from malaria.
>Accepted samples from a Sudanese test where children who had never used a pencil before averaged a 50 IQ on the "draw a man" IQ test. The same children averaged 94 on the portions of the test that don't involve use of a pencil.

The bullshit doesn't stop there. Lynn did a study of Japanese IQ and came up with an average of 111. Then based a bunch of papers on this supposed Japanese superiority.

Harold Stevenson and Hiroshi Azuma, “IQ in Japan and the United States,” Nature, Vol. 306 (November 17, 1983), pp. 291–292.

Turns out all his Japanese samples were the children of well-off parents from major metropolitan areas. The skewed sample was then compared to the average (and more representative) American IQ.

>this bullshit statement
You have the mind of a child. Run along back to /pol/ now.

>>8939648
I read the book. But recently, I read some "hysterical" blog:
>http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bellcurvescience.htm
So I got curious and started actually looking into the studies myself instead of relying on books to sum up studies for me.

In the studies cited in the above link, such as the Minnesota adopted baby study, the authors themselves do indeed admit the statistical issues of their study and warn against drawing deep conclusions from it. And there are indeed several studies that contradict the conclusions of the Bell Curve, many of which aren't any weaker than the adopted baby study.

Murray also cited Lynn heavily. However, Lynn's methodologies actually border on intellectual dishonesty:
>The Dangers of Unsystematic Selection Methods and the Representativeness of 46 Samples of African Test-Takers
>Wicherts, Jelte M. ; Dolan, Conor V. ; Van Der Maas, Han L. J.
>Intelligence, 2010, Vol.38(1), p.30-37 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
This meta-study shows how in Lynn's sub-Saharan IQ studies, the sampled IQ is the prime determinant of whether a sample is considered representative or not. It's almost comedy. In some cases Lynn outright contradicts himself, rejecting a study for having quality X, then admitting another study with the same quality.

>Nature 297, 222 - 223 (20 May 1982); doi:10.1038/297222a0
>IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity
Here's another Lynn gem: Japanese IQ is 111 (>10 points higher than White IQ!). Too bad another study looked at his samples and found he was only comparing elite japanese professionals to the american average IQs.

Of course Murray minimizes or simply fails to mentions the substantial counterpoints to the studies he cites. His intellectual dishonesty comes complete with an erudite and "dispassionate" veneer, but that shouldn't matter if you're listening to the actual content.