UK Politics Thread: The Mandelson Effect

[Imperializt Russia]

3.67 million babies were born in the European Union in 2023.
7.18 million babies were born in Nigeria in 2022.
General intelligence is largely hereditary: the consensus estimates are between 50 to 80 per cent. General intelligence correlates substantially with life outcomes, and average IQ in countries is strongly associated with national outcomes.

Oh hello there Charles Murray.

50 to 80 % of the variance between the "general intelligence" of individuals is down to genetic factors. Not 50-80% of their "general intelligence" flat. That's now how that works. Oh, but that's only in twin studies. Crazy that twins might be highly genetically related. In studies between unrelated individuals - you know, a population - it is estimated at being nearer 30%

Genetic analysis of families in Scotland indicates that ‘more intelligent’ people have fewer DNA mutations that impair intelligence and general health, rather than having more genetic variants that increase intelligence. Intelligence depends partly on environmental factors but genes have an influence. Research on twins has suggested that 50-80% of the variation in general intelligence between people could be down to genes but the gene variants responsible for intelligence haven’t yet been identified. Studies of the DNA of hundreds of thousands of unrelated people suggest that only around 30% of the variation in intelligence is inherited. This differences between these percentages between the results of twin studies and genome studies has become known as the mystery of the missing heritability.

https://institute-genetics-cancer.ed.ac.uk/news-and-events/news-2017/how-much-intelligence-personality-inherited

Anyway, we don't have a measurable proxy for general intelligence anyway. It's not IQ scores!

I opened with the Charles Murray quip because your post is literally just lifting the thesis statement of The Bell Curve and posting it in this thread. You have clearly read and greatly enjoyed that book, which Charles Murray continues to promote.

But Charlie intentionally misrepresents the conclusions in the book - even the ones they didn't selectively quote to misrepresent themselves.

Murray represents the "50-80" number as 50-80% of intelligence, as a concept, as understood through the posted IQ score. Which is several layers removed from reality.

[Fartsniffage]

Spice is ahead of us dear IR, spice is ahead of us.

Its bad spice, very bad spice but its upon us.

I'm moving to a country with a lot of desert in February.

Perhaps I can find a way to kill all the sandworms, and therefore destroy the source of spice.

Except that it strikes me that most people in this thread are already addicted to the spice...

I just wanted blue eyes..

[The Archregimancy]

I'm moving to a country with a lot of desert in February.

Perhaps I can find a way to kill all the sandworms, and therefore destroy the source of spice.

Except that it strikes me that most people in this thread are already addicted to the spice...

I just wanted blue eyes..

Do you also want to unleash a genocidal war of terror across the known galaxy?

Just asking, obvs.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Personally I prefer my politics bitter and/or salty.

[East Dolinia]

Oh hello there Charles Murray.

50 to 80 % of the variance between the "general intelligence" of individuals is down to genetic factors. Oh, but that's only in twin studies. Crazy that twins might be highly genetically related. In studies between unrelated individuals - you know, a population - it is estimated at being nearer 30%

Genetic analysis of families in Scotland indicates that ‘more intelligent’ people have fewer DNA mutations that impair intelligence and general health, rather than having more genetic variants that increase intelligence. Intelligence depends partly on environmental factors but genes have an influence. Research on twins has suggested that 50-80% of the variation in general intelligence between people could be down to genes but the gene variants responsible for intelligence haven’t yet been identified. Studies of the DNA of hundreds of thousands of unrelated people suggest that only around 30% of the variation in intelligence is inherited. This differences between these percentages between the results of twin studies and genome studies has become known as the mystery of the missing heritability.

https://institute-genetics-cancer.ed.ac.uk/news-and-events/news-2017/how-much-intelligence-personality-inherited

Anyway, we don't have a measurable proxy for general intelligence anyway. It's not IQ scores!

I opened with the Charles Murray quip because your post is literally just lifting the thesis statement of The Bell Curve and posting it in this thread. You have clearly read and greatly enjoyed that book, which Charles Murray continues to promote.

But Charlie intentionally misrepresents the conclusions in the book - even the ones they didn't selectively quote to misrepresent themselves.

Murray represents the "50-80" number as 50-80% of intelligence, as a concept, as understood through the posted IQ score. Which is several layers removed from reality.

If you read it, everything will become clear to you.
After reading it once, I dismissed it. After reading it twice, I had some doubts. After reading it three times, I felt confused. After reading it four times, I finally understood completely.
This is why I often advise users of this Web site who fail to understand or to substantively respond to my posts to read them again and again.
w.r.t. 50-80, it's now given as the consensus estimate range, and didn't, I believe, originate with Murray and Herrnstein. As I refresh my knowledge I'm reading now e.g. on Wikipedia about genomic studies which give much lower estimates, I don't know about these, but it's probably a Communist hoax.
Communists also advanced the Lysenkoite pseudoscientific theory of 'multiple intelligences' and refer to IQ as measuring 'aptitude at IQ tests' rather than general intelligence. But the G factor is the most scientific measurement of something which obviously, objectively exists - general intelligence of individuals.

From Wikipedia - on the validity of IQ:

Reliability and validity are very different concepts. While reliability reflects reproducibility, validity refers to whether the test measures what it purports to measure.[93] While IQ tests are generally considered to measure some forms of intelligence, they may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of human intelligence inclusive of, for example, creativity and social intelligence. For this reason, psychologist Wayne Weiten argues that their construct validity must be carefully qualified, and not be overstated.[93] According to Weiten, "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable."[93]

Along these same lines, critics such as Keith Stanovich do not dispute the capacity of IQ test scores to predict some kinds of achievement, but argue that basing a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone neglects other important aspects of mental ability.[14][99] Robert Sternberg, another significant critic of IQ as the main measure of human cognitive abilities, argued that reducing the concept of intelligence to the measure of g does not fully account for the different skills and knowledge types that produce success in human society.[100]

Despite these criticisms, clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes, such as diagnosing intellectual disability, tracking cognitive decline, and informing personnel decisions, because they provide well-normed, easily interpretable indices with known standard errors.[38][101]

Creativity and social intelligence are interesting concepts, but if they're distinct from general intelligence, a measurement of general intelligence shouldn't, after all, be able to measure them.
Nor should a measurement of general intelligence "fully account for ... different skills and knowledge types."

[Kerwa]

Apparently, I didn't.

Independently of Primrose Hillgate, I think it is well worth the reminder that nobody felt the need to say "do not go to the London New Years' Eve fireworks because all the tickets have been sold out" until 2015-heading-into-2016, when ticketing was introduced proximate to the rise of ISIS terrorism in Europe. (I forgot if it was a terrorism issue or just an overcrowding issue; the Mayor's set a hard cap of 100,000 or so, compared to the roughly half a million who watched the Millennium Fireworks, while Hogmanay attracts some 40,000.) And how far have we fallen since the late-stage Johnson mayoralty indeed.

They did not have such things when I lived in London but I doubt they have improved the place. It always struck me as a bit of a Blair effort to make everything American - except free speech and guns - which makes sense if you believe the rumors. In any event, New Years in Britain isn’t supposed to be about fireworks, but rather excessive drinking and ill considered romantic liaisons, not fireworks. Unless you are old, in which case it is about Andy Stewart.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you read it, everything will become clear to you.
After reading it once, I dismissed it. After reading it twice, I had some doubts. After reading it three times, I felt confused. After reading it four times, I finally understood completely.

Yes, you radicalised yourself, we know, we have to fucking read it.

w.r.t. 50-80, it's now given as the consensus estimate range, and didn't, I believe, originate with Murray and Herrnstein. As I refresh my knowledge I'm reading now e.g. on Wikipedia about genomic studies which give much lower estimates, I don't know about these, but it's probably a Communist hoax.
Communists also advanced the Lysenkoite pseudoscientific theory of 'multiple intelligences' and refer to IQ as measuring 'aptitude at IQ tests' rather than general intelligence. But the G factor is the most scientific measurement of something which obviously, objectively exists - general intelligence of individuals.

I did not say Murray "came up with" 50-80. He did not. But he misrepresents a politically useful framing of it, which is scientifically wrong.

I gave a link that talked about the origin, and real meaning, of that figure, and that it is itself somewhat misleading because it is from twin studies, not the general population. And gave that figure. From the same link.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Making the Channel Tunnel a road tunnel would've been a massive, wasteful, toxic monument to car-depedency and gasoline-addiction... and I'm unsurprised that Thatcher saw all that as good things.

I expect she just thought railway staff have unions.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Making the Channel Tunnel a road tunnel would've been a massive, wasteful, toxic monument to car-depedency and gasoline-addiction... and I'm unsurprised that Thatcher saw all that as good things.

I expect she just thought railway staff have unions.

She was a market liberal conservative.
Owning a car is a personal item of travel.
While trains are generally more publically owned in nature.
She just saw the car being better than a train.
Its similar to the "american dream" idea.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I wonder if Milei will present Farage with a chainsaw when he visits the UK this year. Probably followed shortly by a 'the Malvinas belong to us' statement.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I expect she just thought railway staff have unions.

She was a market liberal conservative.
Owning a car is a personal item of travel.
While trains are generally more publically owned in nature.
She just saw the car being better than a train.
Its similar to the "american dream" idea.

She also fucking hated unions. I know that because I was an adult the entire Thatcher years, and saw her speak in person.

[Imperializt Russia]

I expect she just thought railway staff have unions.

She was a market liberal conservative.
Owning a car is a personal item of travel.
While trains are generally more publically owned in nature.
She just saw the car being better than a train.
Its similar to the "american dream" idea.

Yeah. And she was wrong.

Just because the car is "muh freedumb" should not mean we should make everything all cars all the time. Chunnel as a road-only link would have made it completely useless, and a major risk to life. As a rail link - even as a RORO rail link for people's cars and trucks - it is much safer and more efficient. Thatcher was wrong and was talked around to being... righter than she was.

[-Britain-]

After reading it once, I dismissed it. After reading it twice, I had some doubts. After reading it three times, I felt confused. After reading it four times, I finally understood completely.
This is why I often advise users of this Web site who fail to understand or to substantively respond to my posts to read them again and again.

Your posts in this thread are dismissable, however many times they are reread, because they're composed of utter baloney, especially the ones concerning race and IQ, and I've read them more than once just for the comical value of the stupidity and ignorance of their sentiments.

[East Dolinia]

After reading it once, I dismissed it. After reading it twice, I had some doubts. After reading it three times, I felt confused. After reading it four times, I finally understood completely.
This is why I often advise users of this Web site who fail to understand or to substantively respond to my posts to read them again and again.

Your posts in this thread are dismissable, however many times they are reread, because they're composed of utter baloney, especially the ones concerning race and IQ, and I've read them more than once just for the comical value of the stupidity and ignorance of their sentiments.

Give an example.

[-Britain-]

General intelligence is largely hereditary: the consensus estimates are between 50 to 80 per cent. General intelligence correlates substantially with life outcomes, and average IQ in countries is strongly associated with national outcomes.
That is, largely hereditary individual differences, which can be regarded as hereditary group differences when contrasting populations, contribute substantially to individual and group differences in outcomes.
So the replacement of Europeans with e.g. Nigerians will render European societies rather similar to Nigeria.
What will become of hundreds of millions of Nigerians?
Is it likely that the world will benefit by the replacement of Europeans with Nigerians?

General intelligence is largely hereditary? Yes, studies have demonstrated this is the case. But studies have not proven that any racial group is predisposed with this factor to any lesser or greater degree than any other group.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I miss Bottle. She was always good at ripping this Jebtopian pseudoscience apart.

[East Dolinia]

General intelligence is largely hereditary: the consensus estimates are between 50 to 80 per cent. General intelligence correlates substantially with life outcomes, and average IQ in countries is strongly associated with national outcomes.
That is, largely hereditary individual differences, which can be regarded as hereditary group differences when contrasting populations, contribute substantially to individual and group differences in outcomes.
So the replacement of Europeans with e.g. Nigerians will render European societies rather similar to Nigeria.
What will become of hundreds of millions of Nigerians?
Is it likely that the world will benefit by the replacement of Europeans with Nigerians?

General intelligence is largely hereditary? Yes, studies have demonstrated this is the case. But studies have not proven that any racial group is predisposed with this factor to any lesser or greater degree than any other group.

Group differences in intelligence (as measured by IQ) exist.
Intelligence is substantially hereditary (as you have seen, there is disagreement about the precise degree to which it is hereditary.)
Does it follow that group differences in intelligence are entirely environmental?

[Fartsniffage]

I just wanted blue eyes..

Do you also want to unleash a genocidal war of terror across the known galaxy?

Just asking, obvs.

Just a little one. As a New Years treat.

[-Britain-]

General intelligence is largely hereditary? Yes, studies have demonstrated this is the case. But studies have not proven that any racial group is predisposed with this factor to any lesser or greater degree than any other group.

Group differences in intelligence (as measured by IQ) exist.
Intelligence is substantially hereditary (as you have seen, there is disagreement about the precise degree to which it is hereditary.)
Does it follow that group differences in intelligence are entirely environmental?

Race isn't a biological reality. Scientific racists point out the marked differences in the IQs of populations in developing nations as proof, overlooking the environments in which they live, where malnutrition is common and childhood infectious diseases are rampant, combined with a lack of access to education, which negatively impact upon the brain of a developing child and its capacity for normal intelligence.

Is Racism Just Another Form of Stupidity?
Scientists have measured intelligence in a variety of ways, and the main conclusion always holds up. In one study of white children, for example, some were less able to see that a short wide glass holds the same amount of water as a taller skinnier glass. This ability is known as “conservation” in the jargon of the field, and it’s widely considered an important mental ability. In this study, the kids who lacked this ability also held more negative views of black children. Other researchers conducted an ambitious meta-analysis—a statistical aggregation of findings from many studies—and this also documented a link between cognitive style and ability, on the one hand, and authoritarian attitudes on the other.

Longitudinal studies provide some of the most convincing evidence. One such study looked at general intelligence in 10- and 11-year-old kids, and then re-studied those kids as adults two decades later—and found a clear connection between low intelligence and subsequent racism and sexism. Similarly, higher intelligence in childhood has been shown to predict less racism in adulthood. These analyses strongly suggest that low intelligence actually leads to hateful attitudes later on.

This is just a sampling of the accruing evidence on this point, all of which points to another puzzling question: Why? Why would verbal ability and math skills and other cognitive assets translate, over the years, into such hateful attitudes?

[Scientists] believe they have an answer to this, again one based on rigorous abundant evidence. Their theory is that right-wing ideologies attract people with lower mental abilities because they minimize the complexity of the world. Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views of society, views that preserve traditions and norms, so they are especially attractive to those who are threatened by change and want to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. Conversely, smart people are more capable of grasping a world of nuance, fluidity and relativity.

[East Dolinia]

Group differences in intelligence (as measured by IQ) exist.
Intelligence is substantially hereditary (as you have seen, there is disagreement about the precise degree to which it is hereditary.)
Does it follow that group differences in intelligence are entirely environmental?

Race isn't a biological reality. Scientific racists point out the marked differences in the IQs of populations in developing nations as proof, overlooking the environments in which they live, where malnutrition is common and childhood infectious diseases are rampant, combined with a lack of access to education, which negatively impact upon the brain of a developing child and its capacity for normal intelligence.

Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently:
Is it possible that, given that 'within-race' differences in intelligence are substantially heritable, group differences are not at all heritable?
We're fortunate, at least with a view to answering this question, that Western societies are so racially diverse. Murray and Herrnstein made mention of the Minnesota adoption study (black children adopted by white parents, raised in the same environment as white children, with different outcomes) and of substantially lower average SAT scores of black youths when controlling for household income.

Is Racism Just Another Form of Stupidity?
Scientists have measured intelligence in a variety of ways, and the main conclusion always holds up. In one study of white children, for example, some were less able to see that a short wide glass holds the same amount of water as a taller skinnier glass. This ability is known as “conservation” in the jargon of the field, and it’s widely considered an important mental ability. In this study, the kids who lacked this ability also held more negative views of black children. Other researchers conducted an ambitious meta-analysis—a statistical aggregation of findings from many studies—and this also documented a link between cognitive style and ability, on the one hand, and authoritarian attitudes on the other.

Longitudinal studies provide some of the most convincing evidence. One such study looked at general intelligence in 10- and 11-year-old kids, and then re-studied those kids as adults two decades later—and found a clear connection between low intelligence and subsequent racism and sexism. Similarly, higher intelligence in childhood has been shown to predict less racism in adulthood. These analyses strongly suggest that low intelligence actually leads to hateful attitudes later on.

This is just a sampling of the accruing evidence on this point, all of which points to another puzzling question: Why? Why would verbal ability and math skills and other cognitive assets translate, over the years, into such hateful attitudes?

[Scientists] believe they have an answer to this, again one based on rigorous abundant evidence. Their theory is that right-wing ideologies attract people with lower mental abilities because they minimize the complexity of the world. Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views of society, views that preserve traditions and norms, so they are especially attractive to those who are threatened by change and want to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. Conversely, smart people are more capable of grasping a world of nuance, fluidity and relativity.

Here is the actual scientific paper.
The abstract:
Historically, leading scholars proposed a theoretical negative association between cognitive abilities and prejudice. Until recently, however, the field has been relatively silent on this topic, citing concerns with potential confounds (e.g., education levels). Instead, researchers focused on other individual-difference predictors of prejudice, including cognitive style, personality, negativity bias, and threat. Yet there exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitudes. We conclude that the field will benefit from a recognition of, and open discussion about, differences in cognitive abilities between those lower versus higher in prejudice. To advance the scientific discussion, we propose the Cognitive Ability and Style to Evaluation model, which outlines the cognitive psychological underpinnings of ideological belief systems and prejudice.
I'm not 'prejudiced', and I'm not socially conservative, but I follow where the science leads.

[Efel Path]

This doesn't have much to do with the UK, but it is relevant to the most recent discussion, at least so that no-one is misled:

There is no scientifically rigorous proof that genetic differences in intelligence exist between groups. Studies have found differences in IQ between people of different racial backgrounds (though even these studies acknowledge that race is not a scientific term, at all) - but the consensus among academics is that these differences are environmental, rather than hereditary.

It might be retorted that some studies have controlled for environment, but anyone who seriously makes this point is either misinformed or arguing in bad faith: even in studies that attempt to control for environment, they can never truly can. In the Minnesota study, for example, the authors have explicitly acknowledged that the results were confounded by factors including age of adoption, marginalisation in a socially different community, prejudiced expectations from peers, possible early-life trauma - the list goes on. All of these have been independently proven to have a significant effect on IQ, test scores, etc, and so the differences are much more likely attributable to these factors than a hypothetical and unfounded hereditary difference between imagined races.

Again: anyone who attempts to argue for scientific racism in the 21st century is either uninformed, or alternatively, they know they are wrong but do not care because they cannot mentally cope with the fact that the "people who don't look like me" are fundamentally similar.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

This is what we used to get for New Year's Eve entertainment - you young whippersnappers don't know how lucky you are.

[East Dolinia]

This doesn't have much to do with the UK, but it is relevant to the most recent discussion, at least so that no-one is misled:

There is no scientifically rigorous proof that genetic differences in intelligence exist between groups. Studies have found differences in IQ between people of different racial backgrounds (though even these studies acknowledge that race is not a scientific term, at all) - but the consensus among academics is that these differences are environmental, rather than hereditary.

Following Snyderman and Rothman (1987, 1988), we surveyed expert opinions on the current state of intelligence research. This report examines expert opinions on causes of international differences in student assessment and psychometric IQ test results. Experts were surveyed about the importance of culture, genes, education (quantity and quality), wealth, health, geography, climate, politics, modernization, sampling error, test knowledge, discrimination, test bias, and migration. The importance of these factors was evaluated for diverse countries, regions, and groups including Finland, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Europe, the Arabian-Muslim world, Latin America, Israel, Jews in the West, Roma (gypsies), and Muslim immigrants. Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, whereas other factors such as geography, climate, test bias, and sampling error were less important. ...

Genetic factors have provoked particularly heated disputes, but even the mere description of international ability differences has been contentious (e.g., Hunt, 2012; Coyle et al., 2013; Sternberg, 2013).

One solution to reduce conflict would be to survey experts—scientists who have conducted research on cognitive ability and who have an informed opinion about group differences. Such a solution was adopted in the current study, which examined expert opinions on international ability differences. It is possible that expert opinions may closely approximate the truth. However, majority itself is no sure indicator for truth, especially in a field with zeitgeist or political pressures that favor a particular viewpoint or opinion (e.g., Jussim et al., 2015). ...

Second, in the current study, data collection procedures were designed to ensure anonymity. The anonymity was implemented to reduce pressure for socially desirable responses, and to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest opinions. Opinions made in anonymity (without fear of retribution) may differ from public appraisals such as those reported in Gottfredson's (1994) “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” which was signed by more than 50 researchers. ...

Notice of the study was emailed to experts who published articles on or after 2010 in journals on intelligence, cognitive abilities, and student achievement. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences. Notice of the study was also emailed to members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and posted to the web site for the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID). ISIR and ISSID support intelligence research and host professional conferences with intelligence researchers. Finally, the study was announced at the 2013 ISIR conference in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 1345 people received an email invitation. An expert was defined as a person who had published on cognitive ability or who had attended intelligence conferences and presented research. Compared to Snyderman and Rothman (1988, pp. 46–49), our selection criteria were based more on publications in specific scientific journals and less on membership in scientific organizations. In addition, we used email and a web-based survey rather than traditional mail and paper-pencil surveys.

We received a total of 265 responses from May 2013 to March 2014, at which time the survey was closed. The response rate was 20% of all invitations. The present article focused on cross-national differences and concerned questions toward the end of the survey. These questions were answered by 71 respondents. By comparison, there were 1020 invitations and 661 participants (65%) in the Snyderman and Rothman study.

Respondents were 83% male and 17% female, and had a mean age of 49 years (SD = 14.87, median = 47 years). Respondents were mainly from the United States (38%), Germany (17%), Scandinavia (9%), the UK and Ireland (8%), Spain (7%), Canada (6%), and Australia/New Zealand (6%). The rest were from Latin America, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Russia, The Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, and China. Around 20% had at least some self-rated Jewish heritage. The religious background of the respondents' families was about one third Catholic, one third Protestant, and one third with no affiliation. About 6% of respondents were Jewish (religion), and 62% professed no religious affiliation.

Participants worked in the fields of psychology (80%), education (8%), biology (5%), economics (3%), sociology (2%), and physical anthropology (2%). 87% had a Ph.D. All were scientists (i.e., no journalists). Sixty seven percent were tenured faculty, 24% non-tenured faculty, and 6% students. Other participants (about 3%) were not categorized or worked in non-academic research institutes.

The majority of respondents did research on the “nature of intelligence/cognitive abilities.” The percentage of respondents that studied group differences in ability and related topics was 55% for “group differences”; 33% for “consequences for economics, society, and culture”; 26% for “bias in ability tests”; 25% for “cross-cultural comparisons”; and 25% for “FLynn effect.” Respondents published an average of 47 papers (median = 20 papers), and reported high h-indexes (mean Scopus h = 17, median h = 11; mean Harzing h = 22, median h = 17). The published papers had passed peer review, a requirement for inclusion in Scopus h-index counts. The counts substantiate the high quantity and quality of research published by respondents.

One limitation of the study can be seen in the small sample and low response rates. The sample consisted of 71 respondents, which is small compared to Snyderman and Rothman's sample of 661 respondents (of 1020 invitations). In addition, self-selection of experts could have biased the results.

We attempted to increase response rates by using an Internet survey, emailing invitations (and reminders), and announcing the survey at intelligence conferences. Despite these measures, response rates were still low. The low response rates may be attributed to the length of the survey (which took about 40–90 min to complete), self-censorship, or fear of addressing a controversial subject (despite assurances of anonymity). The low response rates may also reflect a paucity of experts on intelligence and international differences in cognitive ability. There may be 20–50 scientists who study international differences in intelligence. Based on this estimate, the number of respondents (71 people) may exceed the number of scientists who study the topic! Because the aim of the survey was to obtain expert opinions on the research questions, our view is that participation of people with only tangential knowledge of the subject matter could distort answers more than low response rates attributable to self-selection by experts.

One researcher suggested in an email that only politically biased researchers would respond to the questionnaire, especially given its length. In contrast to the speculation, three researchers sometimes labeled as “conservative” in Internet articles and Wikipedia refused to participate due to lack of expertise, survey length, or disapproval of opinion surveys as a way of finding truth. Based on several comments of researchers with diverse political backgrounds we have no hint of biased participation or refusal of participation.

But an expert survey shows two advantages: First, according to the Spearman-Brown prediction formula (Spearman, 1910), increases in the items being analyzed (e.g., test items or expert ratings) will increase the reliability of the final averaged result. The truth value of averaged expert opinions was first described by Galton (1907), who asked stockbreeders and butchers at a cattle market to estimate the weight of an ox. Galton analyzed the estimates and found that the mean value of all results was correct within 1% of the real value. That is, the average opinion of experts was very close to the real answer. The accuracy of expert opinions may extend to the current study, which surveyed experts on international ability differences.

Seventy-one experts rated possible causes of cross-national differences in cognitive ability based on psychometric IQs and student assessment studies (e.g., PISA, PIRLS, TIMSS). Genes were rated as the most important cause (17%), followed by educational quality (11.44%), health (10.88%), and educational quantity (10.20%) (Table 1). The sum of both education factors yielded the highest rating (21.64%). Of all factors, genes had by far the largest standard deviation (SD = 23.85; all other factors, SD < 10), indicating disagreement about the importance of genetic influences. Only 5 of 71 experts (7%) who responded to the genetic item thought that genes had no influence. If non-responses to the genetic item are converted to 0% (4 additional experts), 13% of experts doubted any genetic influence. The frequency of zero-percentage-ratings was larger for genes than for culture or education (about 1%), but experts who believed that genes had no influence were a minority: Around 90% of experts believed that genes had at least some influence on cross-national differences in cognitive ability.

This finally leads to some limitations of the presented study: The main limitation can be seen in the low response rate (20%). Although low response rates can produce unreliable results, low response rates are less problematic in the current study, which was designed to solicit informed opinions about ability differences. Because experts who responded to the survey had conducted research in relevant areas (e.g., cognitive ability, group differences, test bias, cross-cultural comparisons, FLynn effects), they were in a good position to provide informed opinions of ability differences. Thus, although response rates were low, the responses were likely to reflect the opinions of people who had expertise on the topic being evaluated.

It might be retorted that some studies have controlled for environment, but anyone who seriously makes this point is either misinformed or arguing in bad faith: even in studies that attempt to control for environment, they can never truly can.

So your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Again: anyone who attempts to argue for scientific racism in the 21st century is either uninformed, or alternatively, they know they are wrong but do not care because they cannot mentally cope with the fact that the "people who don't look like me" are fundamentally similar.

Well, disbelief in an unfalsifiable theory is hardly uninformed.

[Humanlonia]

This doesn't have much to do with the UK, but it is relevant to the most recent discussion, at least so that no-one is misled:

There is no scientifically rigorous proof that genetic differences in intelligence exist between groups. Studies have found differences in IQ between people of different racial backgrounds (though even these studies acknowledge that race is not a scientific term, at all) - but the consensus among academics is that these differences are environmental, rather than hereditary.

It might be retorted that some studies have controlled for environment, but anyone who seriously makes this point is either misinformed or arguing in bad faith: even in studies that attempt to control for environment, they can never truly can.

So your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Again: anyone who attempts to argue for scientific racism in the 21st century is either uninformed, or alternatively, they know they are wrong but do not care because they cannot mentally cope with the fact that the "people who don't look like me" are fundamentally similar.

Well, disbelief in an unfalsifiable theory is hardly uninformed.

This isn't a hypothesis. It's proposed by those who claim intellectual ability is hereditary. According to Russell's Teapot, they're the ones who have to prove it. This is currently impossible.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Racism should remain an art, not science.