Keith, I am not arguing with you, but anything like the following always
has me wondering about sources, the nature and suitability of the tests that
were administered (Stanford-Binet?), sample size, etc. I don't expect
things on this list to be fully documented, but some indication of where the
figures came from and how carefully they were derived would be helpful.
Ed
> Hi Lawry,
>
> At 13:12 17/09/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Fascinating, Keith. How do you see, in terms of complexity and systems
> >capacity, the effects of broad immigration into the United States?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Lawry
>
> Nice of you to say the above, but it may be that you're not going to like
> my reply. In view of the vitriol I received once before, I resolved never
> to mention the subject again directly on FW. But now you've asked me, I
> will. I'm going to talk of IQ. Bear in mind, however, that I am much in
> agreement with those who criticise IQ tests as being highly selective and
> artificial. That's as may be, but also bear in mind that they correlate
> highly with success in the same modern western civilisation which produced
> those IQ tests. They may be self-referential but they bear upon the sort of
> civilisation that, seemingly everybody else in the world wishes to aspire
> to. If anyone wants to criticise IQ tests then they'd better also criticise
> western society -- and ruthlessly, too -- and they'd better supply an
> alternative -- and a workable alternative, too.
>
> Secondly, bear in mind that nothing has received quite as much flak as IQ
> testing. But, by and large, it has stood up to it. It is, without any doubt
> at all, mostly (70%) to do with the genes that are involved in the
> development of the individual brain architecture and only 30% with
> environment. Thirdly, traditional IQ tests correlate well with Wechsler
> tests which are as culture-free as tests can be. Fourthly, traditional IQ
> tests correlate well with mental reaction times from the simplest possible
> procedures which any person -- even from the depths of the Papuan jungle
> could take with ease.
>
> America had a tremendous amount going for it by the 1870s or so -- a
> sufficient technology infrastructure mainly acquired from England and
> Europe, wide open spaces, lots of resources, a temperate climate with
> decent soils, long coast lines for trading opportunities, etc. It could do
> nothing else but do well. With hardly any effort it couldn't fail to be a
> major power in the world. It needed more people and it opened its doors to
> the poor and oppressed of Europe (so long as they didn't carry TB -- those
> who had it were sent back immediately on the same ship that brought them).
> By accident America cropped into the most intelligent people in Europe, the
> Jews, who had had enough of constant persecution and pogroms for centuries.
> Almost more than any other people in the world, and probably equalled only
> by the Chinese, they have respected scholarship. The one thing that any
> Jewish parents wanted more than anything else was for their daughter to
> marry the best Torah scholar in their neighbourhood. He might not be any
> use for the family business but he'd likely produce a bunch of bright
> grandchildren who might be. Those immigrants produced as hard a working and
> as intelligent a work force as any that could be imagined for a young
> nation. It was their children, born in America that did more for the work
> ethic and success of America, particularly in New York and the big cities,
> up to about the 1930s as any nation could have received. Furthermore, they
> were then followed by a smaller but even more intelligent consignment of
> Jewish scientists, philosophers, financiers and artists -- many of them
> geniuses -- who were then being perscuted by the Nazi regime in Germany and
> other to-be occupied countries in Europe. I needn't mention any of these --
> they are household names.
>
> So, to the mean IQ of 100 of American whites at around 1880 (that is, much
> the same as the average European) a crop of a couple of million or so Jews
> of probably a mean IQ of 106 or slightly more (I'm guessing) followed by a
> couple of hundred thousand or so of IQ 130+ (I'm guessing) and we have the
> makings of a Jewish population in America of about 6 million with a
> reliably tested mean IQ of 110 today (and some tests suggest an IQ higher
> than this). (This is a shade higher than the Chinese diaspora of 50 million
> in south-east Asia with mean IQs of about 105.) Now an average IQ of 110
> compared the white American average of 100 doesn't sound terribly
> significant, but it certainly is when you look at the upper tail of the
> distribution because there you will find twice or three times the number of
> people at the 130+ level which is where *significant* creativity starts.
>
> So look at what happens at the highest institutions of learning (and here
> we can throw in some Asian-Americans, too). At Harvard in the late 1990s,
> 20% of the undergraduates were Asians (which comprise about 2% of the
> population), and about 30% of the undergraduates were Jewish Americans
> (which also comprises about 2% of the whole population). The other half of
> the intake were made up from the remaining 94% of Americans.
>
> Jewish Americans predominate at the highest levels in all American
> institutions where mental ability counts -- academe, art and entertainment,
> media, civil service, politicians, businesspeople. There's no need to be a
> conspiracist or to ascribe bad motives to most of them (they have their bad
> apples as all ethnic groups do) to say that that's where they almost
> automatically end up by sheer brilliance and respect for scholarship.
> (Also, just to mention Asians again, Asian-born and Asian-Americans write
> 70% of the papers in the top physics and engineering journals. Jews tend to
> be verbally dominant [left-brain], while Asians tend to be spatially
> dominant [right-brain].)
>
> I ascribe the success of American business and science in the second half
> of the 20th century as very importantly due to the immigration of European
> Jews into America.
>
> The mean IQs of Black Americans and Hispanics are 85 and 92 respectively,
> and the mean IQ of Americans as whole (all colours) is 98. Almost
> certainly, however, if the immigration of Hispanics continues apace then
> the mean IQ will decline from 98 -- according to the rate of immigration.
> And that's where I must leave it for lack of further information. I don't
> know what the differential birth rates are between American blacks and
> Whites, nor the immigration figures or birth rates for Hispanics. (I'm not
> American and I'm not terribly knowledgeable about IQ to be especially
> motivated to research further, though I'd obviously be interested to know
> the data.)
>
> In conclusion, I'll mention one more point which I think are important. I
> am beginning to think that traditional IQ -- that is the measurement of
> mental skills and, importantly, rapidity of mental reflexes is not in
> itself overwhemingly important. As mentioned to Ed, there is some evidence
> now that frontal lobe development takes place over a much longer period
> than childhood and the frontal cortex is not so much concerned with
> specific skills but with the timely application of skills -- patience,
> persistence, creativity, emotional control . These, I suggest, are even
> more important than IQ ability alone. This also fits in with what some
> economists are now saying. They are now ascribing more importance to the
> contribution of culture upon the economic success of an ethnic group or
> nation. And this is under more direct political control than "raw-IQ" ever
> was. If there is a real respect for scholarship within a culture then it is
> more likely that the frontal lobes will develop more satisfactorily than in
> one without discipline or application of scholarship. In time, this will,
> of course feedback positively to the selection of high levels of the basic
> IQ of the rear cortex -- as was obviously the case of the Jews of central
> Europe from about 1400 onwards who found partners for their children with
> great care (as many orthodox Jews do know, of course). Modern Jews are also
> the first into eugenics by a persistent campaign of steadily eliminating
> the dreadful Tay-Sachs Disease from their gene pool.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't touched upon systems complexity in America, but you
> can draw your own conclusions, I think.
>
> Keith
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> >Sent: Wed, September 17, 2003 12:42 PM
> >To: Ed Weick
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: This sceptred compost heap (was Re: [Futurework] Education
> >
> >Ed,
> >Thanks for this. I've read three different summaries of this same OECD
> >report this morning!
> >I've just come back from a dogwalk and still dwelling on what I wrote
> >after sending you my previous posting. What was occurring to me is that
> >the reason for a number of the arguments we have is that our societies are
> >much more different than we might imagine -- or at least I might imagine
> >anyway. Time and again, I describe things going on here and I get the
> >impression from some of your slightly nonchalant responses sometimes that
> >you might be thinking that I am exaggerating. I also get the impression
> >that you live in a much more laid back -- indeed much happier and less
> >stressed -- society than here. Hitherto, I've regarded the difference as a
> >personality one. However, during the dogwalk -- and I hope you don't think
> >I'm being patronising here -- I think our society is more complex than
> >yours because we have so many layers of history. Please don't think I'm
> >trying to show off -- but consider. We were building quite complex stone
> >buildings at the tip of Scotland and in the south of England before the
> >pyramids were built. By 1,000BC we had probably the most complex bronze
> >technology in the world (apart from China's), using tin from Cornwall and
> >copper from north Wales, with, correspondingly, a very advanced mining
> >technology (scores of tin mines stretching for miles under the sea bed in
> >Cornwall and over 50 miles of recently discovered tunnels in north Wales
> >from that date -- made with bone and stone tools), and with significant
> >manufacturing areas somewhere in between (not yet discovered) to actually
> >make the bronzes (of different blends for different purposes) and then
> >trading the products over thousands of miles from the Baltic through to
> >the Mediterranean. Then we've been invaded by the Romans, and the Saxons,
> >and the Vikings and Danes, and the Normans with their advanced feudal
> >system followed by the landowning classes. We were at the back-end of the
> >Mediterranean Renaissance but one of the first into long-distance trading
> >with Asia and big trading companies, the first into the Western Scientific
> >Enlightenment and then the Industrial Revolution, and the first into the
> >computer revolution. We are the third/fourth largest exporting country in
> >the world -- not of products (we're mined out of almost everything we ever
> >had by way of resources), but of a variety of services. In short, we
> >probably have the most mature job and social structure of anywhere in the
> >world. We live by our wits. We may not have the sheer mass, momentum or
> >technological products that the Americans have got but I think we lead the
> >world in the acquisition of problems, strains and stresses from all this
> >historical/technological development. We're a well-rotted compost heap,
> >showing extremes of anything that can be discussed in terms of job
> >structure and society. In addition, we're also geographically small enough
> >to have started the most comprehensive welfare, educational, social
> >services, health and transport services in the world and now we're the
> >furthest advanced in showing that they're breaking down -- that the
> >welfare society is absolutely cram full of problems and we're showing them
> >all in abundance, so much so that even a Labour government is trying to
> >privatise as much as it can get away with (albeit in more cunning ways
> >that Thatcher did). The only other country which has had such a complex
> >history as ours, running through the whole gamut of every type of economic
> >and technological development is China. I cannot think of any other with
> >such a varied experience and with so many historical residues which are
> >still fermenting away.
> >
> >I'm very probably over-egging the pudding (once again without wishing to
> >be patronising in any way at all) but, in comparison, Canada's (and
> >America's) social, economic, historical, cultural problems are somewhat
> >simpler than ours. I'm not suggesting in any way that you are personally
> >naive, but I think that your problems can be stated (and solved) in much
> >more simplistic terms than could be done here. However, I believe that
> >many of the trends and problems here in England that I am writing about
> >will come to you, too, in due course -- because we are much further on in
> >what I believe to be the decline of the industrial revolution.
> >Keith
>
> Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England,
> <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
> At 13:12 17/09/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Fascinating, Keith. How do you see, in terms of complexity and systems
> >capacity, the effects of broad immigration into the United States?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Lawry
>
> Nice of you to say the above, but it may be that you're not going to like
> my reply. In view of the vitriol I received once before, I resolved never
> to mention the subject again directly on FW. But now you've asked me, I
> will. I'm going to talk of IQ. Bear in mind, however, that I am much in
> agreement with those who criticise IQ tests as being highly selective and
> artificial. That's as may be, but also bear in mind that they correlate
> highly with success in the same modern western civilisation which produced
> those IQ tests. They may be self-referential but they bear upon the sort of
> civilisation that, seemingly everybody else in the world wishes to aspire
> to. If anyone wants to criticise IQ tests then they'd better also criticise
> western society -- and ruthlessly, too -- and they'd better supply an
> alternative -- and a workable alternative, too.
>
> Secondly, bear in mind that nothing has received quite as much flak as IQ
> testing. But, by and large, it has stood up to it. It is, without any doubt
> at all, mostly (70%) to do with the genes that are involved in the
> development of the individual brain architecture and only 30% with
> environment. Thirdly, traditional IQ tests correlate well with Wechsler
> tests which are as culture-free as tests can be. Fourthly, traditional IQ
> tests correlate well with mental reaction times from the simplest possible
> procedures which any person -- even from the depths of the Papuan jungle
> could take with ease.
>
> America had a tremendous amount going for it by the 1870s or so -- a
> sufficient technology infrastructure mainly acquired from England and
> Europe, wide open spaces, lots of resources, a temperate climate with
> decent soils, long coast lines for trading opportunities, etc. It could do
> nothing else but do well. With hardly any effort it couldn't fail to be a
> major power in the world. It needed more people and it opened its doors to
> the poor and oppressed of Europe (so long as they didn't carry TB -- those
> who had it were sent back immediately on the same ship that brought them).
> By accident America cropped into the most intelligent people in Europe, the
> Jews, who had had enough of constant persecution and pogroms for centuries.
> Almost more than any other people in the world, and probably equalled only
> by the Chinese, they have respected scholarship. The one thing that any
> Jewish parents wanted more than anything else was for their daughter to
> marry the best Torah scholar in their neighbourhood. He might not be any
> use for the family business but he'd likely produce a bunch of bright
> grandchildren who might be. Those immigrants produced as hard a working and
> as intelligent a work force as any that could be imagined for a young
> nation. It was their children, born in America that did more for the work
> ethic and success of America, particularly in New York and the big cities,
> up to about the 1930s as any nation could have received. Furthermore, they
> were then followed by a smaller but even more intelligent consignment of
> Jewish scientists, philosophers, financiers and artists -- many of them
> geniuses -- who were then being perscuted by the Nazi regime in Germany and
> other to-be occupied countries in Europe. I needn't mention any of these --
> they are household names.
>
> So, to the mean IQ of 100 of American whites at around 1880 (that is, much
> the same as the average European) a crop of a couple of million or so Jews
> of probably a mean IQ of 106 or slightly more (I'm guessing) followed by a
> couple of hundred thousand or so of IQ 130+ (I'm guessing) and we have the
> makings of a Jewish population in America of about 6 million with a
> reliably tested mean IQ of 110 today (and some tests suggest an IQ higher
> than this). (This is a shade higher than the Chinese diaspora of 50 million
> in south-east Asia with mean IQs of about 105.) Now an average IQ of 110
> compared the white American average of 100 doesn't sound terribly
> significant, but it certainly is when you look at the upper tail of the
> distribution because there you will find twice or three times the number of
> people at the 130+ level which is where *significant* creativity starts.
>
> So look at what happens at the highest institutions of learning (and here
> we can throw in some Asian-Americans, too). At Harvard in the late 1990s,
> 20% of the undergraduates were Asians (which comprise about 2% of the
> population), and about 30% of the undergraduates were Jewish Americans
> (which also comprises about 2% of the whole population). The other half of
> the intake were made up from the remaining 94% of Americans.
>
> Jewish Americans predominate at the highest levels in all American
> institutions where mental ability counts -- academe, art and entertainment,
> media, civil service, politicians, businesspeople. There's no need to be a
> conspiracist or to ascribe bad motives to most of them (they have their bad
> apples as all ethnic groups do) to say that that's where they almost
> automatically end up by sheer brilliance and respect for scholarship.
> (Also, just to mention Asians again, Asian-born and Asian-Americans write
> 70% of the papers in the top physics and engineering journals. Jews tend to
> be verbally dominant [left-brain], while Asians tend to be spatially
> dominant [right-brain].)
>
> I ascribe the success of American business and science in the second half
> of the 20th century as very importantly due to the immigration of European
> Jews into America.
>
> The mean IQs of Black Americans and Hispanics are 85 and 92 respectively,
> and the mean IQ of Americans as whole (all colours) is 98. Almost
> certainly, however, if the immigration of Hispanics continues apace then
> the mean IQ will decline from 98 -- according to the rate of immigration.
> And that's where I must leave it for lack of further information. I don't
> know what the differential birth rates are between American blacks and
> Whites, nor the immigration figures or birth rates for Hispanics. (I'm not
> American and I'm not terribly knowledgeable about IQ to be especially
> motivated to research further, though I'd obviously be interested to know
> the data.)
>
> In conclusion, I'll mention one more point which I think are important. I
> am beginning to think that traditional IQ -- that is the measurement of
> mental skills and, importantly, rapidity of mental reflexes is not in
> itself overwhemingly important. As mentioned to Ed, there is some evidence
> now that frontal lobe development takes place over a much longer period
> than childhood and the frontal cortex is not so much concerned with
> specific skills but with the timely application of skills -- patience,
> persistence, creativity, emotional control . These, I suggest, are even
> more important than IQ ability alone. This also fits in with what some
> economists are now saying. They are now ascribing more importance to the
> contribution of culture upon the economic success of an ethnic group or
> nation. And this is under more direct political control than "raw-IQ" ever
> was. If there is a real respect for scholarship within a culture then it is
> more likely that the frontal lobes will develop more satisfactorily than in
> one without discipline or application of scholarship. In time, this will,
> of course feedback positively to the selection of high levels of the basic
> IQ of the rear cortex -- as was obviously the case of the Jews of central
> Europe from about 1400 onwards who found partners for their children with
> great care (as many orthodox Jews do know, of course). Modern Jews are also
> the first into eugenics by a persistent campaign of steadily eliminating
> the dreadful Tay-Sachs Disease from their gene pool.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't touched upon systems complexity in America, but you
> can draw your own conclusions, I think.
>
> Keith
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> >Sent: Wed, September 17, 2003 12:42 PM
> >To: Ed Weick
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: This sceptred compost heap (was Re: [Futurework] Education
> >
> >Ed,
> >Thanks for this. I've read three different summaries of this same OECD
> >report this morning!
> >I've just come back from a dogwalk and still dwelling on what I wrote
> >after sending you my previous posting. What was occurring to me is that
> >the reason for a number of the arguments we have is that our societies are
> >much more different than we might imagine -- or at least I might imagine
> >anyway. Time and again, I describe things going on here and I get the
> >impression from some of your slightly nonchalant responses sometimes that
> >you might be thinking that I am exaggerating. I also get the impression
> >that you live in a much more laid back -- indeed much happier and less
> >stressed -- society than here. Hitherto, I've regarded the difference as a
> >personality one. However, during the dogwalk -- and I hope you don't think
> >I'm being patronising here -- I think our society is more complex than
> >yours because we have so many layers of history. Please don't think I'm
> >trying to show off -- but consider. We were building quite complex stone
> >buildings at the tip of Scotland and in the south of England before the
> >pyramids were built. By 1,000BC we had probably the most complex bronze
> >technology in the world (apart from China's), using tin from Cornwall and
> >copper from north Wales, with, correspondingly, a very advanced mining
> >technology (scores of tin mines stretching for miles under the sea bed in
> >Cornwall and over 50 miles of recently discovered tunnels in north Wales
> >from that date -- made with bone and stone tools), and with significant
> >manufacturing areas somewhere in between (not yet discovered) to actually
> >make the bronzes (of different blends for different purposes) and then
> >trading the products over thousands of miles from the Baltic through to
> >the Mediterranean. Then we've been invaded by the Romans, and the Saxons,
> >and the Vikings and Danes, and the Normans with their advanced feudal
> >system followed by the landowning classes. We were at the back-end of the
> >Mediterranean Renaissance but one of the first into long-distance trading
> >with Asia and big trading companies, the first into the Western Scientific
> >Enlightenment and then the Industrial Revolution, and the first into the
> >computer revolution. We are the third/fourth largest exporting country in
> >the world -- not of products (we're mined out of almost everything we ever
> >had by way of resources), but of a variety of services. In short, we
> >probably have the most mature job and social structure of anywhere in the
> >world. We live by our wits. We may not have the sheer mass, momentum or
> >technological products that the Americans have got but I think we lead the
> >world in the acquisition of problems, strains and stresses from all this
> >historical/technological development. We're a well-rotted compost heap,
> >showing extremes of anything that can be discussed in terms of job
> >structure and society. In addition, we're also geographically small enough
> >to have started the most comprehensive welfare, educational, social
> >services, health and transport services in the world and now we're the
> >furthest advanced in showing that they're breaking down -- that the
> >welfare society is absolutely cram full of problems and we're showing them
> >all in abundance, so much so that even a Labour government is trying to
> >privatise as much as it can get away with (albeit in more cunning ways
> >that Thatcher did). The only other country which has had such a complex
> >history as ours, running through the whole gamut of every type of economic
> >and technological development is China. I cannot think of any other with
> >such a varied experience and with so many historical residues which are
> >still fermenting away.
> >
> >I'm very probably over-egging the pudding (once again without wishing to
> >be patronising in any way at all) but, in comparison, Canada's (and
> >America's) social, economic, historical, cultural problems are somewhat
> >simpler than ours. I'm not suggesting in any way that you are personally
> >naive, but I think that your problems can be stated (and solved) in much
> >more simplistic terms than could be done here. However, I believe that
> >many of the trends and problems here in England that I am writing about
> >will come to you, too, in due course -- because we are much further on in
> >what I believe to be the decline of the industrial revolution.
> >Keith
>
> Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England,
> <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
