Copying this in from another thread:
* It's missing a little context.
What's the source for that? It's hard to believe since the average IQ of blacks in the UK is about 93 (young only - source later), something like 85 in the US and probably lower in Serbia (about 90), where the average salary is several times higher than Kenya.
From a search I found one study of school children that appears to be what you are referring to. However, they have applied the Flynn Effect to the result, which means they boosted the numbers under the assumption that IQ will be higher in the future.
Also in reference of the study of young children (like this study).
The IQ of infants are very similar and they disperse until they become adults. In US studies the IQ of children at various ages show little difference due to race at a young age and large ones at adulthood. That this is due to environment can be ruled out with evidence such as
adoption studies. That one in particular shows the effect of a black child being adopted by higher income white families is the additions of about 4 IQ points.
Will continue with this thread...
It partly refereed to motor skills, which are not relevant (enter Steven Hawkins).
Also, the results of that test are from the
Bayley Scales, which is a test given to children of 0-1 years of age.
As already mentioned, IQ (or cognitive ability) of children is very much clustered and it changes with age. So this data is not particularly relevant for this thread.
You titled this thread as covering IQ, but that was the only part of your thread in which you mentioned it.
What have you done to look into this? There is a wealth of evidence on the cognitive abilities of people from around the world.
It all points very strongly to considerable differences of IQ between ethnicities and classes of people.
It is the case that people around the world have IQs that are lower than what they could possibly be, due to the circumstances of their lives.
We are born with genes that code these fleshy pulps we inhabit. As we are born with genes that can only lead us becoming so tall, or only seeing so well,
people are born with a threshold to their cognitive ability limited by their brain. No one has a solution to cure poor eye sight as it's coded for by genes. We likewise don't know how to make people more intelligent, because genes limit how intelligent one can be.
For those who say IQ is not that important. Maybe if you need complex surgery you wouldn't mind someone with a 90 IQ operating on you, or maybe an 80 IQ (considered mildly retarded). It is simply
not possible for someone with a 90 IQ to undertake professional occupations. They can be trained to do complex things, but as soon as a complex problem arises outside of that training, they can't solve it. This is what IQ measures - the complexity of the problems you can solve. The average IQ of professional occupations (US) is about 112. The main reason certain places in the world are undeveloped is because there are less people cognitively capable of undertaking the tasks of a complex society. In the case of Africa it's 1-2% of people who have the cognitive ability to undertake these jobs. And a lot of them are leaving.
Here are some real scores, but note they have all been inflated as to account for the Flynn Effect.
When you take into account these are just young people, the not so well nourished and educated previous generations reduce those scores. And since most of them are results for children, they will likely drop a few points more compared to the London standard of IQ (100) by adulthood.
And here is maybe one of the largest relevant studies, of British pupils:
It's a Cognitive Ability Test (which is interchangeable with IQ).
As you will see the average IQ of Sub-Saharans is about 93, but this is in the UK, and people who
immigrate to the UK are not representative of their homelands. Immigrants seem to always skew higher in IQ. It wouldn't be possible for an 80 IQ person to immigrate over 1,000s of miles, using various modes transport and arrange all they need to.
The reason for differences in cognitive ability across ethnicities and classes is man-made environments.
Over many generations those who are more successful in their environment slowly proliferate. So people who live high in the Himalayas are better at processing oxygen. Those who live in regions with high amounts of selenium in the soil have a higher tolerance to it.
But we have been adapting our environments and creating social and economics structures that have also acted as components in sexual selection. If you live in a commercial society without a juicy welfare state and where it was important to improve your offspring's lot by marrying advantageously then you create an environment where intelligence is positively selected, sexually. Estimates run at IQ increasing by about 0.3 per generation in such circumstances.
The only way this can happen is if the more intelligent produce more children than the less intelligent. On the balance, there is no way for less intelligent people to create more intelligent offspring.
So England, varying by location and by class has been somewhat in that stream for around 800-900 years. The average IQ (in good living conditions) is probably about 105.
Then you take Eastern China, excluding their dark ages, they've been in an environment where sexual selection of intelligence was at play for around 2,000 years. The average IQ (in good conditions) is about 115. For the extra 1,100 years - that's about 33 generations, with the IQ increasing at 0.3 per generation.
Then you take Sub-Saharan Africa, where people have undertaken little more than hunter gathering and subsistence farming. It requires some cognitive ability, but the threshold isn't that high. In those societies having a 100 IQ is not any more desirable for sexual selection than having an 80 IQ.
However, in most or all societies there were classes of people who had callings and mating patterns that lent themselves to a small group who had some sexual selection based on intelligence. These were merchants, priests, keepers of history and so on. Africa has had those people, but in very limited numbers.
What sets parts of Europe and a few parts of Asia apart is these people existed in larger numbers and in a broader scope - a large middle class (in the terms of the time).
Last point is that due to the controversy around the research there is not enough good data on IQ by country. But there is a lot more data on standardised educational attainment. They show the same as IQ studies - a difference of about 40% between those in Bejing and those in Sub-Saharan Africa.
See.