Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Biology’ Category

Higher IQ correlates with greater honesty

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/141619/1/dp9860.pdf

This is an extremely interesting psychological (or economics) experiment.

The person being experimented on was asked to secretly roll a six-sided die and report the result. Soldiers who reported higher numbers were allowed to leave earlier from their job, and civilians who reported higher numbers got a higher reward (which was only 10 shekels for each pip, or about three US dollars).

The distribution of numbers reported for those in the top half of intelligence, based on either the kaba (the Israeli military evaluation score) or a 12-question intelligence test, closely resembled what would have been expected based on chance, except that it seems that the high intelligence responders sometimes under-reported high die rolls.

But when you look at the distribution of numbers for those in the lower half of intelligence, it’s pretty obvious that a substantial number of them are lying about what number they rolled in order to get a higher payout or an earlier release time from their military job. More so for the civilians than the soldiers.

None of the other factors they looked at (such as self-reported honesty) had a statistically significant impact on the distribution of die rolls. Although I wish that they had done this test on more people in order to be sure; there was a possible correlation between being from a city and having less honesty, and having higher honesty if from a rural area.

This experiment has huge implications for what kind of society you want to live in. It’s pretty clear that higher IQ leads to high-trust societies where people are honest with each other, while lower IQ leads to crime-ridden disorderly societies. Also, if hiring people, it’s way better to hire people from the top 50% of IQ if you want to have honest employees. IQ is way more important than merely being the ability to do well on tests.

The paper is also informative because it includes the 12 question Raven’s Progressive Matrices test that was used. This is an IQ test that is talked about a lot, but I’ve never actually seen what the test is like.

There were 12 questions, but only a stupid person could get more than 1 question wrong (because the last question on the test was slightly non-obvious, so if someone wasn’t motivated they might blow it off). Indeed, about a quarter of the test-sitters got all 12 questions correct, and another quarter got 11 questions correct. So my conclusion is that the test is good at measuring stupidity, but bad at measuring intelligence. If this is the test that was used to conclude that intelligence is rising (the so-called Flynn Effect), then the alleged rise means that stupid people became less stupid, not that smart people became smarter.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 28, 2019 at EST pm

Posted in Biology, Economics

Genetics of height and intelligence

Height, like intelligence, is a complicated polygenic trait involving hundreds, probably thousands, of genetic variants. But unlike intelligence, it’s not politically incorrect to study the genetics of height, or to assume that if a particular ethnicity is very tall or very short, then it’s because of genetics.

Thus, it’s interesting that scientists have discovered a single genetic variant that contributes to Peruvians being short.

The same techniques could be used to investigate intelligence. It would be beneficial to study the smartest ethnicity (Ashkenazi Jews) and extremely low-intelligence ethnicities like Aboriginal Australians and southern African Bushmen. I’m sure if we did that, we could discover additional genetic variants related to intelligence.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 15, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Biology

Deval Patrick failed the bar exam two times

Carr: Deval Patrick falls way short of the bar

Deval Patrick (who was the black governor of Massachusetts and is now running for President) failed the bar exam two times. Despite going to Harvard Law School. Obviously a massive affirmative action admit.

I went to a crappy state school, but not only did I pass the bar exam on the first attempt, I passed with a very high score relative to what I needed to merely pass it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 15, 2019 at EST am

Posted in Biology, Politics

Truth about college admissions and fake news in the NY Times

I am totally outraged by the misinformation and HBD denialism in this NY Times article about college admissions.

The only part of it that’s probably true is that even though colleges claim their admissions are “need blind,” secretly they are trying to rig things to get wealthy students whose parents can not only afford to pay full price, but are also more likely to donate extra money on top of that.

The implication is that the worst demographic to be in is a poor white person. Because the colleges have quotas for each race, if you’re in the white race you are competing against the rich whites. Based on the way that colleges measure “diversity,” a poor white person adds no diversity, just a burden on the college’s finances.

The article does demonstrate the truth of the phrase “get woke go broke.” After Trinity College implemented the woke Hispanic admissions director’s more woke admissions guidelines, their ranking among national liberal arts colleges dropped from 38 to 46.

By the way, doesn’t everyone know that the purpose of mid-tier and below liberal arts colleges is to be a place for less academically gifted rich kids to go to school? I don’t think that a degree from Trinity College is any sort of magic ticket to a good job. I never heard of the place before reading the NY Times article. So if poor kids can’t get into that place, they are not missing out on that much.

I do believe that a bunch of professors wrote a letter saying they loved the students admitted by the more woke admissions policies. That’s what SJW professors would say even if it wasn’t true. You can’t believe anything that SJWs say.

The article is pushing the falsehood that SAT scores only measure how rich the test-takers parents are. In fact, SAT scores are pretty unbiased measures of genetic ability, especially when all test takers have relatively the same opportunity to prep for the test. What has happened in the United States is that a century of meritocracy has caused all of the smart people to rise into the higher classes, and then they pass on their high-IQ genes to their children. The elite in this country, consequently, are genetically smarter than the non-elite. On average, of course. There are still kids, like myself, who came from prole parents and aced the SAT.

Actual scientific research shows that the article is dead wrong. The College Board research report, which was mentioned in the article, but which the author of the article either didn’t read or didn’t understand, has a lot of interesting information.

Historically, it has been known that high school GPA (HSGPA) alone predict first-year college GPA (FYGPA) better than SAT scores alone. And the NYT article repeats that, but actually that’s no longer true. When the writing-section score is included with the SAT score, then the SAT score alone now predicts FYGPA better than HSGPA alone. This is new.

The biggest surprise to me in reading the College Board research report is that the writing section (SAT-W) alone has the highest individual predictive power for FYGPA over either of the other sections alone. Given that the writing section has the least precise grading, two humans read it and each assign it a score of 2 to 8, I figured it would be less predictive than the more precise scores on the other sections of the SAT. Also, of all sections, the writing section seems like it would be most subject to prepping, because the test-taker must learn the “correct” way to write an SAT essay which isn’t necessarily obvious. And the only way to know if your practice essays are good or bad is to have an experienced human grade it, which costs money, while you can know how well you are doing on multiple choice tests based solely on self-grading your work. So if there’s any advantage to having rich parents, I would assume that the writing section would be the section on the SAT where that advantage would manifest.

I thought about this, and concluded that for people who take college classes where the grades are based primarily on essay exams, then the SAT-W is the best at predicting FYGPA because scores on an essay exam are the best at predicting scores on other essay exams. I would expect that for people majoring in subjects where the tests are more objective, such as STEM and some business majors like Finance, then the multiple-choice sections of the SAT would be better at predicting grades. However, this is something that was not explored in the College Board research article.

Another thing we learn is that all of the predictors significantly overpredict grades for blacks, and also to a lesser extent they overpredict FYGPA for poor kids. This is the opposite of what liberals would think. Liberals would think that the SAT is biased against blacks and the poor, and that when they went to college their college grades would reflect their true unbiased abilities and they’d do better than predicted by the SAT. But the opposite happens and they do worse. Because the SAT isn’t biased, it’s accurately showing that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

I thought about this, and I believe the reason why there is such a large overprediction for blacks is because of affirmative action and because grades are curved, so it’s much harder to get an A at Harvard than an A at Trinity college (assuming that both schools have the same percent of As, Bs, Cs, etc.). Because blacks are being accepted into schools where they have much lower SAT scores than the average white students, they are going to get lower grades.

However, I also think that there are some economic stresses that can make it more difficult for students from poor families to focus on their college education.

The College Board report also shows us that for applicants whose families are poor (have less than $40,000 per year income), their HSGPA overpredicts their FYGPA relative to their SAT scores. The obvious reason for this is that kids from poor families usually go to crappy high schools where you can get good grades just by showing up and doing the assignments. Good grades at a crappy high school doesn’t mean that the student is ready for college material.

The report also shows that SAT scores overpredict FYGPA for males, and this is as I would have expected. Girls get better grades than boys in high school because they are more conscientious and agreeable, and they carry that over into college as well.

* * *

Steve Sailer’s more satirical take on the NY Times arcticle.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 10, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Biology, Education

New York Times says the earth is NOT warming!

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Of course that was in 1989.

What happened since 1989? Did we make new discoveries in physics, like the discovery of DNA or something like that? Did we discover some new way to measure past temperatures? The answer is no, there were no new scientific discoveries. What happened is that global warming, which then became “climate change,” became like a religion. Everyone was forced to believe in it, or be banned from having their voices heard. Past temperature data was adjusted to show what everyone “knows” to be true, that the temperatures have been rising.

Climate change is just like the other big false belief, that there are no genetic difference in intelligence between races. To be skeptical about global warming has become almost as big of a taboo as talking about how blacks have lower IQ than whites.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 2, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Biology, Science

H.J. Eysenck was half Jewish

H.J. Eysenck, one of the two most important HBD researchers (the other being Arthur Jensen, also part Jewish) was half Jewish, a fact he hid for most of his life, according to this article.

We have proved beyond doubt that Eysenck was in fact half Jewish on his mother’s side, and therefore strictly Jewish according to Rabbinic law (Halacha). Using techniques and resources of Jewish genealogy, we discovered that his maternal grandmother’s birth name was Helene Caro. We then located her marriage certificate, which confirmed that both Helene and her husband (Eysenck’s maternal grandfather) Max Werner belonged to long-established Jewish families.

Without the contributions of Jews, HBD probably wouldn’t even exist. It was from reading the books and articles of Arthur Jensen and H.J. Eysenck at the Van Pelt Library at the University of Pennsylvania that I learned about the science of HBD (which at the time was not called HBD, that term was coined by Steve Sailer).

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 31, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Biology

Women better than men in the bottom third of society

Comment from “SC”:

You underestimate how important it is that women are better than men in the bottom third of society.

An IQ 90, high C woman can still look after her own or someone else’s kids without killing them. An IQ 83, low C man is going to abuse or neglect those kids. An IQ 90, high C woman can still show up to her menial job every day, on time, for 20 years. An IQ 83, low C man might show up to work an hour late, drunk and high, and get into fights with his coworkers. To an employer she’s dependable and consistent. Furthermore, high A means she’s better at getting along with coworkers and customers.

Low IQ men have only one advantage over their female peers: physical strength. But with automation, men’s physical strength means less and less with each passing day. By 2100 we may find that men’s physical advantages mean almost nothing in daily life.

Then he adds:

… by age 20+ a lot of the low IQ boys have died from homicide, drugs, or drunk driving. Or they’re in prison and unable to be part of some IQ study.

SC assumes that women could have a 7-point IQ advantage over men at the bottom of society. I agree that women are smarter than men at the bottom of society, but I don’t know if it’s as high as 7 points (based on IQ having a standard deviation of 15 points). On the other hand, if the lowest-IQ males check out by being incarcerated or dead, then maybe we aren’t even measuring their IQs.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 31, 2019 at EDT pm

The genetics of homosexuality

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

As an HBD blogger, I’ve always said, duh! of course gayness has a strong genetic component. Proven right again.

However, as attitudes towards gayness have progressed from something considered disgusting and gross to something considered awesome and prideful, of course more people of borderline sexuality are going to go over to the other team.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at EDT pm

Posted in Biology

Women lack the urge to win

Commenter “toomanymice” writes in a comment:

My sister is something of a math whiz, but her career ambition was close to zero. I think lion is grossly underestimating the role female lack of competitiveness plays in these statistical differences. Even the ambitious women aren’t all that ambitious by male standards.

Wanting to be best, the drive to be high earning will have a snowball effect on all kinds of life choices. And conversely having little interest in either will have an anti-snowball effect.

I’m not denying men (at least at the top end) are smarter than women, just that the ambition disparity is a huge factor in life trajectory.

I don’t think I’m underestimating anything. Many times I’ve brought up what John Tierney wrote 14 years ago in the New York Times, that women lack the urge to win.

I’ve also repeatedly cited the boringness factor as the primary reason it’s so hard to find women coders. Even though higher male intelligence at the top-end would mean that the best coders would be men, there are a lot of women smart enough to code if they wanted to, but they don’t want to because they find it boring.

I don’t think that either of these things has anything to do with males outperforming females on the SAT. Girls do better in high school, even in math and science classes, so I would assume that they would also bring those same qualities to the SAT which everyone knows is very important, so I don’t believe that males are outperforming females on the SAT because they are studying harder for it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at EDT pm

White men are smarter than white women, more evidence from SAT scores

I specifically say “white,” because among blacks, the ability gap between men and women is much smaller. For evidence I cite this paper. Although it’s form 1988 using data from 1985, we know that these differences between races and sexes have not changed much at all over time.

It may actually be better to look at test scores from the 1980s, because I am pretty sure that since then, the ETS has been trying to jigger the test so that it’s more biased in favor of females and against males. (In fact, I suspect that the recent change in which ETS stopped reporting the multiple-choice verbal section scores independent of the written essay was intended to hide the fact that females score lower on the non-essay verbal section.

In the 1985 data, white males outperformed white females by 52 points in math and 8 points in verbal. (And black males outperformed black females by 31 points in math and 10 points in verbal, but black females far outnumbered black male test takers in 1985.)

The report is also kind enough to provide the standard deviations for every average, and we see that men have a higher standard deviation than women. (And we also see that blacks score the expected 0.96 standard deviations less than whites on the verbal section, and 0.97 standard deviations less than whites on the match section.)

On the one hand, the scores are biased against females because more females take the test, and the extra test-takers disproportionately come from the lower half of the bell curve. I believe this is the reason we see a females doing worse on the SAT from the 1980s onward compared to earlier times when college education was seen more as a male thing because women weren’t expected to have careers for their whole lives.

But on the other hand, the scores are biased against males, if we are only looking to measure aptitude rather than achievement, because females are almost surely putting more effort into preparing for the test. In all levels of education, females get better grades than males. This is even true in high school math and science classes. Girls get better grades than boys in high school math and science classes. (Because our society is gynocentric, no one cares about school being biased against boys. You hardly ever hear about it.) But this advantage does not carry through to the SAT because the SAT is more of an aptitude test than high school grades which are more heavily weighted in favor of conscientiousness (more studying and more time spent doing homework assignments) and agreeableness (telling the teacher what they want to hear and good behavior in class). But if girls are studying more than boys for their high school classes, then surely they are also studying more for the SAT, so I suspect that if studying had been equal, the male-female gap on the SAT would be even greater.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether the SAT measures intelligence, and whether the math or verbal section measures intelligence more.

The SAT measures g (the general factor of intelligence), preparation for the exam, and two ability factors independent of g, m (for math ability) and v (for verbal ability). If we could know every test taker’s true measure of g, v, m and prep, we’d be able to do a regression analysis and come up with a predictive formula which would look like this:

SAT-V = g*xv + v*yv + prep*zv
SAT-M = g*xm + m*ym + prep*zm

Men definitely have an advantage over women in m. It’s possible that women have a similarly high advantage over men in v, but because total verbal skills are a combination of g and v, and men have higher g, overall verbal ability is approximately equal between the sexes. I say it’s possible, I don’t know this for certain.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether this matters. I say that the overall difference between all men and women doesn’t matter, what does matter is differences within certain segments of the population. Based on what I wrote yesterday about men having a higher standard deviation of intelligence, the reality is that in the bottom third of the population, women are smarter than men, and when combined with women having higher conscientiousness and agreeableness, among the bottom third of the population women are much better citizens than men. But in the top third of the population, men are smarter than women. It’s in the top third of the population where all of the important activity takes place which advances civilization. The bottom third of the population just provides menial labor.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at EDT am

Posted in Biology

%d bloggers like this: