Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Keith's avatar

I've sometimes wondered why nobody capable has ever taken apart Thomas Sowell's, and various others', claim that hereditarianism counts for almost nothing. Well, I need wonder no more. I couldn't have asked for a more comprehensive demolition.

Expand full comment
Spencer Moore's avatar

In critiquing hereditarianism in Intellectuals and Race, Sowell's citation of the low IQ of WWI Irish conscripts is particularly noteworthy.

On this point Sowell remarks that 26 percent of Irish soldiers exceeded the overall American norm as did even fewer percentages of ethnic Russians (19%), Italians (14%) and Poles (12%). However, the citation to Brigham (1923) largely (if not fully) reports results from an Irish sample consisting of 658 observations (see Table 9 of Brigham (1923)); it seems that these likely encompass the 422 Army Alpha, 205 Army Beta and 25 Stanford-Binet test takers first assembled by Yerkes (1921) (see Russell Warne's discussion of this study here: https://russellwarne.com/2022/12/17/irish-iq-the-massive-rise-that-never-happened/). Importantly, as Warne notes in his review of past Irish IQ estimates, "The two lowest scoring American samples were both from data collected during World War I and reported by Yerkes (1921): 205 illiterate, foreign-born Irish draftees taking the Army Beta (avg IQ = 80.9) and 25 low-functioning foreign-born Irish draftees taking the 1916 Stanford-Binet (avg IQ = 77.4). Both of these samples are clearly not representative of the general Irish population. Removing these individuals increases the American Irish weighted mean to 97.8." That is, about a third of Sowell's Irish sample consists of illiterates whose verbal IQ scores are therefore of dubious validity.

The scatterplot in Warne's blog clearly shows that historic Irish IQ has likely always been about 98, contradicting claims of a massive, environmentally-mediated IQ rise in this (and likely all other) ethnic groups.

Expand full comment
93 more comments...

No posts