The average sub-saharan IQ is around 70, the SD 15. If I remember correctly an average coder is something like 110-115 IQ. That is about 3xSD above the average for African blacks which means that about only 0.3% of them are fit for this kind of job.
The average sub-saharan IQ is around 70, the SD 15. If I remember correctly an average coder is something like 110-115 IQ. That is about 3xSD above the average for African blacks which means that about only 0.3% of them are fit for this kind of job.
edit: saw further down in the thread that this was posted: http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf
OK, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is a study about the IQ of sub-Saharan Africans? Did I miss the part in Bloomberg article that talked about how SV needs to hire more citizens of Ghana? The OP seems to entirely focus on SV's employment of African Americans. What does this study of sub-Sahara African have to do with the discussion?
African Americans have had western cultural innovation on lock-down for at least the past 100 years, and IQ was cooked-up by by a field of "science" that can't even reproduce its own seminal papers.
What does this mean? I don't understand what "lock down" means (I'm British).
Not an argument
> African Americans have had western cultural innovation on lock-down for at least the past 100 years
African Americans (which are mulatto btw) constitute to a very small percentage of blacks in the world. And while the importance can discussed all those cultural innovations were built upon western (white) accomplishments. There is almost none signifact scientific/cultural innovations that came form Africa.
> and IQ was cooked-up by by a field of "science" that can't even reproduce its own seminal papers
IQ study is the most well-researched and studied branch of Psychometry and usual attemps at "disproval" are centered around bogus arguments around enviroment being the dominant factor (where study finds that 50%-80% of it is genetic)
Western accomplishments, which mostly happened from the Reinassance onwards, became possible when:
1) Paper was introduced in Europe. Before that, printing a book would require "parchments" made out of sheep or goat skin. It would take in average 300 goats to print a bible.
2) The Church was influenced by philosophers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and became more tolerant of science. Before that it would be considered blasphemy, apostasy or witchcraft.
3) A vast number of volumes of philosophical and scientific literature books was translated into Latin.
4) The introduction of better numerals and algebra.
Who is specifically responsible for that?
1) The Islamic Caliphate of Cordoba, in what today would be modern Spain. Specifically the Toledo School of Translators.
2) Refugees from fallen Constantinople carrying literature with them.
So, in short, the European Reinassance, the process that started the "white achievements" you mention, could not be possible if it wasn't because of the contributions of the Islamic civilization.
The follow up reaction to this is usually: if these guys were so advanced, what happened to them? Two things: Spanish Reconquista, and a massive invasion by the Mongol empire which razed all their cities, agriculture, irrigation, infrastructure, and killed all the scholars.
Knowledge is an uninterrupted chain of teachers and students and a missing generation is enough to kill it.
Totally an argument when "statistics" frequently just means, "I put my small sample size of confounded variables in Excel and ran the stat functions."
>> There is almost none signifact scientific/cultural innovations that came form Africa.
You mean people living in undeveloped countries aren't going to be on the forefront of cultural innovation? I'm shocked.
>> IQ study is the most well-researched and studied branch of Psychometry and usual attemps at "disproval" are centered around bogus arguments around enviroment being the dominant factor (where study finds that 50%-80% of it is genetic)
Never even addressed nature vs nurture. I'm sure if any other bunch of quacks spent a hundred years tweaking a test to predict their idea of intelligence, I'm sure it would. I'd be less sure about it predicting the forms of intellect they failed to consider.
e.g:
- dietary iodine affects your IQ positively
- exposure to lead (e.g: leaded fuel emissions), arsenic (e.g: from water) and pollution at a large affects your IQ negatively
That is the kind of statement that really, really needs a citation.
Culture is often promoted as the explanation precisely because it's easy. That doesn't make it right.
- nutrition
- access to clean water
- pollution
- exposure to lead, arsenic, etc.
Some people argue that there are SNP markers associated with higher IQ that are not present in African populations. The problem with that argument is that not all of those SNPs have been found.
An average African student has an average IQ of 85, which is one SD from the average. This is in line with whites where the average student is about 110-115 which is one SD from the average
All the factors I mentioned have an impact in IQ. Two more concrete examples:
- Nutrition-wise, it is not only about hunger. The addition of iodine in food such as tablet salt, has improved Western IQ by about 15 points. In contrast, iodine deficiency is a problem present in Africa.
- Leaded fuel for example had a negative impact on the brain and has been found to affect IQ negatively. Only recently Africa has been transitioning out of leaded fuel.
Now, if you are going to be taking a random sample that is representative of a population, everyone within that population has the same probability of being sampled, so the "random kids" you mentioned could perfectly be sampled, and if they're significant in their population that might be reflected in the sample as well.