Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













The model has a third task. It offers an explanation for a whole range of
other phenomena that have proved baffling. Why people's genes seem to count
more for IQ as they age. Why enrichment programs boost IQ a lot at the
start, then little more, and then see their effects fade away after children
leave the program. Why cross-racial adoptions do not raise the IQs of black
adoptees to the white average. Why certain methodologies produce nonsense
results, such as showing that group IQ differences known to be environmental
in origin have a genetic component. And to return to the race and IQ debate,
it shows that environment could explain racial IQ differences just as it
explains IQ differences between generations.


What this does not explain is:

  1. How Africans with with small cranial capacities could achieve the IQ of Asians with 11.6% larger brains containing 880 million more cortical neurons.
  2. Why Africans with such low education budgets score higher on international tests than blacks in Washington, DC, with one of the world's largest education budgets.
  3. Why African blacks are productive enough to earn $600 per capita while American blacks are so unproductive that they are a $18,273 per capita loss to US GDP.

Heritability Estimates vs. Large Environmental Effects: The IQ Paradox

Psychological Review, Vol. 108, No. 2 (April 2001)

William Dickens, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, and James R. Flynn,
University of Otago

(Note: this is a synopsis of an article in Psychological Review, vol. 108,
no. 2, April 2001.)


Darwin's Origin of Species sparked the modern debate about genes versus
environment in explaining differences between human individuals and groups.
Ever since, the pendulum of scientific opinion has swung back and forth with
consensus always out of reach. For the last 15 years, psychologists have
been plagued by a paradox that suggests that environment is both feeble and
overwhelmingly potent.

The paradox emerged from a debate about race. US whites outscore US blacks
on IQ tests by 15 points. Does that gap have environmental causes or is it
partially due to genes? In 1973, Arthur Jensen constructed a model that
applied kinship data to group differences in IQ. Evidence from kinship
studies showed identical twins separated at birth and raised in different
homes grow up with very similar IQs. The fact that they have identical genes
provides an obvious explanation. Jensen argued that fully 75 percent of IQ
variance between individuals was due to genetic differences (a value which
sits in the middle of the range recently endorsed by a select committee of
the American Psychological Association for adult IQ). Jensen's model showed
that a purely environmental explanation of the black/white IQ gap meant that
the environment of the average US black must be as unfavorable for the
development of IQ as the lowest one percent of white environments measured
in terms of their effects on IQ. That simply did not seem possible.

Jensen's model seemed to preclude a purely environmental explanation for any
large IQ gap between groups. Then, in 1987, Flynn showed that in nation
after nation, the current generation outscores the last generation by some 9
to 20 IQ points. The gains are greatest on those tests often called the best
measures of intelligence. Their size and speed dictate an environmental
explanation. Flynn applied Jensen's model. An environmental explanation
meant putting the current generation within the top one-tenth of one percent
of the last generation in terms of environmental quality. What was known to
be true was shown to be impossible.

How could solid evidence show both that environment was so feeble (kinship
studies) and yet so potent (IQ gains over time)?

Dickens has proposed a model that we believe solves the paradox. It assumes
that people who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched
with superior environments for that trait; and that genes can derive a great
advantage from this because genetic differences are persistent. A genetic
advantage remains with you throughout life, while environmental differences
tend to come and go, unless sustained by the steady pressure of genes.

Take those born with genes that make them a bit taller and quicker than
average. When they start school, they are likely to be a bit better at
basketball. The advantage may be modest but then reciprocal causation
between the talent advantage and environment kicks in. Because you are
better at basketball, you are likely to enjoy it more and play it more than
someone who is bit slow or short or overweight. That makes you better still.
Your genetic advantage is upgrading your environment, the amount of time you
play and practice, and your enhanced environment in turn upgrades your
skill. You are more likely to be picked for your school team and to get
professional coaching.

Thanks to genes capitalizing on the powerful multiplying effects of the
feedback between talent and environment, a modest genetic advantage has
turned into a huge performance advantage. Just as small genetic differences
match people with very different environments, so identical genes tend to
produce very similar environments-even when children are raised in separate

In other words, kinship studies of basketball, no matter whether they
involved people with identical genes or different genes, would underestimate
the potency of environmental factors. Playing, practicing, being on a team,
coaching, all of these would be credited to genes-simply because differences
in them tend to accompany genetic differences between individuals. Genes
might seem to account for as much as 75 percent of variance across
individuals in basketball performance. If someone showed that the present
generation was far more skilled at basketball than the last (as indeed they
are), Jensen's math would prove that it was impossible. It would show that
those aspects of environment that are not correlated with genes (which is
all that environment gets credit for in kinship studies) were very feeble.
So feeble that the present generation would have to be within the top one
percent of the last in terms of quality of environment for basketball.

The cognitive ability differences measured by IQ tests may have the same
dynamics. People whose genes send them into life with a small advantage for
these abilities start with a modest performance advantage. Then genes begin
to drive the powerful engine of reciprocal causation between ability and
environment. You begin by being a bit better at school and are encouraged by
this, while others who are a bit 'slow' get discouraged. You study more,
which upgrades your cognitive performance, earn praise for your grades,
start haunting the library, get into a top stream. Another child finds that
sport is his or her strong suit, does the minimum, does not read for
pleasure, and gets into a lower stream. Both of you may go to the same
school but the environments you make for yourselves within that school will
be radically different. The modest initial cognitive advantage conferred by
genes becomes enormously multiplied.

Once again, just as different genes are matched with very different
environments, so identical genes will be matched with very similar
environments. You and your separated identical twin will get very similar
scores on IQ tests at adulthood. Using Jensen's model, genes will get credit
for all of the potent environmental influences you both share. And
environment will appear so feeble that it could not possibly account for the
huge IQ advantage your children enjoy over yourself. Our model shows why
this is a mistake. It shows that kinship studies hide or 'mask' the potency
of environmental influences on IQ. Therefore, they do not really demonstrate
the impossibility of an environmental explanation of massive gains over

The model's next task it to suggest just how environment performs its
demanding role. Social forces affecting the whole of society can provide
something that an individual's life experiences normally do not. They
provide environmental influences that are just as persistent over time as
the individual's genetic endowment, and that are not at the mercy of genes.
After all, the present generation has no advantage in genetic quality over
the last, indeed, it is often argued that the reverse is true due to the
lower fertility of the more highly educated. So between generations, the
mask slips and environmental forces stand out in bold relief. Relatively
small environmental differences between generations gain enormous potency
just as small genetic differences between individuals did: They seize
control of the powerful reciprocal causation that exists between cognitive
ability and environment.

No one knows for certain what environmental trends caused massive IQ gains
but we can suggest a scenario consistent with their history. There is
indirect evidence that massive gains in the cognitive abilities IQ tests
measure began in Britain as far back as those born in 1872. They probably
began with the industrial revolution and were there waiting for IQ tests to
be invented to measure them. The industrial revolution upgraded years and
quality of schooling, nutrition, disease control, all things that could have
had a profound influence in raising IQ, at least up to about 1950.

After 1950, in nations like the US and Britain, IQ gains show a new and
peculiar pattern. The are missing or small on the kind of IQ tests closest
to school-taught material like reading and arithmetic. They are huge on
tests that emphasize on-the-spot problem-solving, like seeing what verbal
abstractions have in common, or finding the missing piece of a Matrices
pattern, or making a pattern out of blocks, or arranging pictures to tell a

Perhaps the industrial revolution stopped demanding progress in the basics
and started demanding that people take abstract problem-solving more
seriously. Post-World War Two affluence may be the key. It brought a
dilution of the pragmatic depression psychology, smaller families in which
children's whys were taken more seriously, work roles in which people were
expected to take more initiative, more energy for making leisure more
cognitively demanding, whether devoted to chess or bridge or video games or
simply to conversation in which people were expected to take ideas and logic

We call these products of the industrial revolution that may have set
massive IQ gains rolling 'triggers'. The model itself does not specify
ultimate causes and we suggest those listed very tentatively. What the model
does do is demonstrate the potency triggers would gain from seizing control
of reciprocal causation between cognitive ability and environment. The most
dramatic tool at their disposal is the 'social multiplier'. This posits that
when something raises the average performance of society, that rise becomes
a powerful cause in its own right, and raises the average performance
further, and raises it further, until the original rise is greatly

The most potent facet of our environment is other people. When something,
perhaps the popularity basketball got from television, triggered greater
participation in basketball, the average performance rose as individuals
played more and got better. Initially, a few people learn to shoot with
either hand, then others imitate them. The rise in average performance feeds
back into a new challenge for each individual. Those who want to excel have
to learn to pass with either hand and this spreads and raises the average
performance once again. In other words, every rise in individual performance
raises the group average, which forces everyone to raise their individual
performance a notch higher, which raises the group average a notch higher,
and so on. Even a modest environmental trigger of enhanced performance can
become potent by seizing control of the social multiplier-and cause huge
performance gains in a relatively short time.

The same kind of reciprocal causation explains IQ gains. Environmental
triggers raise the cognitive demands of work, family interaction, leisure,
and everyday conversation. Those who respond by upgrading their cognitive
performance raise the average cognitive performance. Then the rising average
affects your employer, family, and friends and they demand or expect more,
and you (and many others) rise to meet their expectations, so the average
cognitive performance jumps once again, and so on, and so on. The model
quantifies this process and shows that quite plausible initial environmental
changes would be enough to explain huge IQ gains-gains of 20 points over a
single generation.

The model has a third task. It offers an explanation for a whole range of
other phenomena that have proved baffling. Why people's genes seem to count
more for IQ as they age. Why enrichment programs boost IQ a lot at the
start, then little more, and then see their effects fade away after children
leave the program. Why cross-racial adoptions do not raise the IQs of black
adoptees to the white average. Why certain methodologies produce nonsense
results, such as showing that group IQ differences known to be environmental
in origin have a genetic component. And to return to the race and IQ debate,
it shows that environment could explain racial IQ differences just as it
explains IQ differences between generations.

Finally, the model has an overriding purpose. In principle, it applies to
the dynamics of any human ability where there is positive feedback between
that ability and environment. We hope it will reconcile social scientists
who have divided themselves, sometimes with bitterness, between
hereditarians who think genes dominant and environmentalists who think
culture dominant. They are both right: It all depends on whether genetic
differences or environmental factors seize control of potent processes like
the social multiplier. We hope that our model will allow them all, from the
psychologists inspired by Sir Cyril Burt to the anthropologists inspired by
Franz Boas, to find common ground, and work together to advance our
understanding of human intelligence and other important traits.



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party