Showing posts with label Richard Lynn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Lynn. Show all posts

Monday, September 26, 2022

Is intelligence all that matters for a successful society?

 


If we consider intelligence to be the only worthy mental attribute, we’ll end up with an elite that is not only intelligent but also narcissistic … and indifferent to the rest of us.

 

 

 

George Francis and Emil Kirkegaard have come out with a study that shows a strong correlation between IQ and wealth creation. The higher the mean IQ, the more a nation can create wealth:

 

We find national IQ to be the “best predictor” of economic growth, with a higher average coefficient and average posterior inclusion probability than all other tested variables (over 67) in every test run. Our best estimates find a one point increase in IQ is associated with a 7.8% increase in GDP per capita (Francis and Kirkegaard 2022)

 

The study is essentially an update of an earlier one by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (2002). It’s better done, and I agree more or less with the conclusion. Wealth is not created in a vacuum. It’s created by flesh-and-blood humans who possess certain mental and behavioral attributes, one of which is high cognitive ability.

 

I do, however, have two criticisms.

 

Criticism #1: On a societal level, cognitive ability is confounded with other mental and behavioral attributes

 

Yes, high cognitive ability is important. But sustainable creation of wealth also requires other mental and behavioral attributes, notably:

 

·         propensity to identify social rules, obey them, and enforce them on others

·         feelings of guilt when one breaks the rules, even when there are no witnesses

·         empathy for others and a desire to understand how one’s behavior affects them

·         inhibition against using violence to settle disputes

·         high degree of future time orientation (also known as low time preference)

 

High IQ + high trust + low violence + low time preference = sustainable creation of wealth (Clark 2007; Clark 2009a; Clark 2009b; Frost 2020). Some will argue that intelligence goes hand in hand with high trust and low time preference (Carl 2014; Kirkegaard and Karlin 2020). That is true on a societal level: the same selection pressures that favor high intelligence usually favor the entire mental and behavioral package. On an individual level, however, intelligent sociopaths do exist, and they can prosper while others suffer. If they become too numerous or too influential, they will eventually destroy their host society. But that can take time.

 

In all fairness, Francis and Kirkegaard did investigate social trust and time preference. Unfortunately, those attributes are confounded with IQ: successful societies tend to have people who are not only intelligent but also trustworthy and future-oriented. That’s survivorship bias: if a society lacks the full mental and behavioral package, it usually goes extinct, and extinct societies get overlooked by cross-national studies. To be precise, societal extinction happens when the intelligent are unrestrained in their contempt for the less intelligent in their midst; they thus prey on them by any means possible, and the resulting strife leads to societal collapse.

 

IQ, social trust, and time preference are normally confounded with each other, at least in most existing societies. Therefore, if you control for IQ, the other two variables will go away, and you’ll think: “Aha! The key variable must be IQ!”

 

And you’ll feel all the more certain because IQ is not just equal to social trust or time preference in predicting wealth creation. It’s actually better! That greater predictive power, however, has a simple explanation: measurement of IQ is based on less subjective data. In this study, social trust is measured by self-report, and time preference is measured by an amalgam of survey responses and credit risk.

 

Criticism #2: The correlation is driven largely by unreliable African data

 

This study has another weak point: the correlation between wealth creation and IQ is driven largely by economic and cognitive data from Africa. If you remove Africa from the chart, the correlation becomes a lot weaker.

 

How reliable is the African data? Not very. First, a lot of African economic activity is “off the books.” That is particularly true for subsistence farming in the countryside, but it’s also true for many businesses in the towns and cities. GDP thus tends to be underestimated.

 

Second, even HBD writers disagree among themselves on mean African IQ, as pointed out by Heiner Rindermann:

 

The [cognitive] ability levels for Africans in Africa are the subject of strong disagreement. Rushton studied positively selected samples (South African university engineering students; Rushton, Skuy, & Fridjhon, 2003), but the mean differences between Africans and Europeans (14 IQ points) were similar to the ones found in Western countries. Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) estimated that sub-Saharan African countries had a mean IQ of 70. Wicherts, Dolan, and Maas (2010) using a different selection procedure came to a mean IQ of 82.

 

Rindermann’s “best guess” is 75. He concludes: “Given the quality of the data, it is not possible to come to a really precise result” (Rindermann 2013, p. 3). If we look at the chart from Lynn and Vanhanen (2002), we see that most sub-Saharan African countries are assigned mean IQs lower than 75. In fact, 75 seems to be the upper limit. That’s the IQ dataset of the new study.

 

Francis and Kirkegaard (2022, pp. 22-23) are aware that the IQ/GDP correlation is a lot weaker without the African IQ data, and they defend the validity of that dataset at some length. I’m still unimpressed, for two reasons:

 

·         If mean African IQ is 70, one must conclude that Africans are much less intelligent than African Americans, whose mean IQ is usually estimated at 85. Such a large difference cannot be explained by European admixture, heterosis, or nutrition.

 

·         The Yoruba of Nigeria have about the same polygenic score as that of African Americans (Piffer 2021, Fig. 7). Their mean IQ should therefore be 85. Yet, according to Lynn and Vanhanen, Nigerians have a mean IQ of 67. Since Nigeria is 18% Igbo, and since the Igbo show high academic achievement, mean Yoruba IQ should therefore be much less than the presumed Nigerian average of 67 (Chisala 2015; Frost 2022). The numbers don’t seem to add up.

 

Please don’t get me wrong. I agree that mean IQ is lower in Africa than in Eurasia, but the Lynn and Vanhanen estimates seem too low. In any case, they are not widely accepted even by researchers who accept that cognitive ability varies among human populations.

 

Similarly, I agree that more wealth is created per capita in Eurasia than in Africa. The difference, however, is overstated because so much of African GDP goes unreported. Furthermore, I don’t believe that lower IQ largely explains Africa’s economic underperformance. There is also the excessive use of violence to achieve one’s goals, both by the State and by private individuals. There is also the low level of trust that people have in each other—for the most part, Africans trust only their immediate family and friends. Finally, because family ties are so important, nepotism is widespread, and successful entrepreneurs end up being plundered by greedy relatives. The market economy cannot realize its full potential because the logic of the market has to compete with the logic of kinship.


Edit: George Francis has informed me that the correlation between IQ and GNP per capita remains unchanged if African cognitive and economic data are excluded. Without the African data, GDP per capita would increase 7.7% with each one point increase in IQ, rather than 7.8%.


Conclusion

 

Cognitive ability is only one of several mental and behavioral attributes that are key to building successful economies and societies. If we focus on it to the exclusion of others, we will be talked into supporting policies that have unintended consequences. A good example is the idea of reorienting immigration policy toward recruitment of high-IQ individuals.

 

That idea has the support of many conservatives throughout the West, but the consequences are very un-conservative. In short, we would be selecting immigrants who excel at creating wealth for themselves, by hook or by crook. The eventual result: an elite of rich narcissists who feel little sympathy for common people and who see them as objects to be used, when useful, and thrown away, when not.

 

Please don’t get bamboozled by reassurances that IQ correlates with trustworthiness and low time preference. That’s true only at the societal level. Those three attributes align with each other because they have to: otherwise, society would become dysfunctional and collapse. That’s survivorship bias: we get data from societies that have survived, and not from those that haven’t. If we cherry-pick high IQ immigrants from all over the world, we will create a new kind of society that has not stood the test of time.

 

Actually, that kind of society has arisen in the past:

 

And you should know that all the Cathayans [Chinese] detested the Grand Khan's rule because he set over them governors who were Tartars, or still more frequently Saracens, and these they could not endure, for they were treated by them just like slaves. You see the Great Khan had not succeeded to the dominion of Cathay [China] by hereditary right, but held it by conquest; and thus having no confidence in the natives, he put all authority into the hands of Tartars, Saracens, or Christians who were attached to his household and devoted to his service, and were foreigners in Cathay [China].

            The Travels of Marco Polo, Book 2, Chapter 23

 

Why do you think revolutions happen? It was precisely to avoid such a prospect that elite schools sought to develop not only intellect but also character, including the idea that the powerful have a duty to rule wisely and fairly. That view of higher education has given way to “meritocracy” throughout the West, with results that could have been predicted.

 

References

 

Carl, N. (2014). Does intelligence explain the association between generalized trust and economic development? Intelligence 47: 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.008

 

Chisala, C. (2015). The IQ gap is no longer a black and white issue. The Unz Review, June 25. http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/     

 

Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford.

 

Clark, G. (2009a). The indicted and the wealthy: surnames, reproductive success, genetic selection and social class in pre-industrial England.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf    

 

Clark, G. (2009b). The domestication of man: The social implications of Darwin. ArtefaCTos 2: 64-80. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277275046_The_Domestication_of_Man_The_Social_Implications_of_Darwin  

 

Francis, G., and E.O.W. Kirkegaard. (2022). National Intelligence and Economic Growth: A Bayesian Update. The Mankind Quarterly 63(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.46469/mq.2022.63.1.2  

 

Frost, P. (2020). The large society problem in Northwest Europe and East Asia. Advances in Anthropology 10(3): 214-134. https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2020.103012     

 

Frost, P. (2022). Recent cognitive evolution in West Africa: the Niger’s role. Evo and Proud, April 30. https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2022/04/recent-cognitive-evolution-in-west.html  

 

Kirkegaard, E.O.W., and A. Karlin. (2020). National intelligence is more important for explaining country well-being than time preference and other measured non-cognitive traits. Mankind Quarterly 61: 339-370. http://doi.org/10.46469/mq.2020.61.2.11  

 

Lynn, R. and T. Vanhanen. (2002). IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Westport, Conn: Praeger

 

Piffer, D. (2021). Divergent selection on height and cognitive ability: evidence from Fst and polygenic scores. OpenPsych https://openpsych.net/files/submissions/14_Divergent_selection_on_height_and_cognitive_ability_evidence_from_Fst_and_13c3ICJ.pdf     

 

Rindermann, H. (2013). African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences 55: 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.022     

Sunday, July 17, 2022

Cognitive evolution on the Italian Peninsula

 



A recent polygenic study has shown that mean cognitive ability is higher in the North of Italy than in the South. Cognitive evolution seems to have gone the farthest in the Northeast, perhaps because the Northwest earlier went through the Industrial Revolution, which severed reproductive success from economic success.

 

 

 

As a country, Italy came into existence only a century and a half ago. Regional differences are still strong, particularly between the North and the South. The “Southern question” is usually said to date from the unification of Italy in the 19th century:

 

In the decades following the unification of Italy, the northern regions of the country, Lombardy, Piedmont and Liguria in particular, began a process of industrialization and economic development while the southern regions remained behind. At the time of the unification of the country, there was a shortage of entrepreneurs in the south, with landowners who were often absent from their farms as they lived permanently in the city, leaving the management of their funds to managers, who were not encouraged by the owners to make the agricultural estates to the maximum. Landowners invested not in agricultural equipment, but in such things as low-risk state bonds. (Wikipedia 2022a)

 

De Rosa (1979) argues that the South had already fallen behind the North by the 18th century. At that time, its middle class was small, and economic relations were still structured by paternalism and familialism. One could go back even farther, to the Renaissance or even the late Middle Ages, to identify the moment when northern Italy, and Western Europe in general, embarked on sustained economic growth and thus pulled ahead of the rest of the world.

 

That sustained economic growth brought sustained demographic growth, particularly of the middle class. Gregory Clark found that the English middle class expanded steadily from the twelfth century onward, its descendants not only growing in number but also replacing the lower classes through downward mobility. By the 1800s, its lineages accounted for most of the English population. That demographic change coincided with mental and behavioral changes: higher cognitive ability, lower time preference, and a lower threshold for violent behavior. In a word, the English became more middle-class in character. “Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving” (Clark 2007, p. 166).

 

Elsewhere in Western Europe, the middle class similarly expanded during late medieval and early modern times. The result would be a growing contrast between regions that had participated in this economic and demographic change and those that had not, such as southern Italy. The contrast can be seen not only on purely economic measures but also on mental ones, like the INVALSI standardized test—an annual test of skills in Italian schools. It is divided into two sections: Italian language skills and Math skills. On both tests, northern Italian students do better than southern Italian students, the difference being a little over half a standard deviation:

 


Yes, the North-South gap in academic achievement could have a purely environmental cause—and this is a recurring problem when we try to tease apart genetic and cultural evolution. If economic development is held back by a culture of poverty, that same culture may discourage students from trying to do better at school. Those students may also have less access to proper nutrition, medical care, libraries, and so on.

 

Polygenic scores for cognitive ability

 

That is why there is so much interest in measures of innate cognitive ability. The most promising one is the polygenic score (PGS)—the summation of alleles (genetic variants) that have been associated with cognitive ability, as measured by educational attainment.  At present, we have identified enough of these alleles to explain 11-13% of the overall variation in cognitive ability (Lee et al. 2018).

 

Yes, those alleles are just a sample of the total number, but why would they be an unrepresentative sample? More to the point: why would PGS data show certain geographic patterns and not a lot of random noise? The mean PGS does indeed differ geographically among human populations. It is highest in Eurasia, with East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Finns having the highest scores. That geographic pattern is in line with IQ data (Piffer 2019).

 

Polygenic scores on the Italian Peninsula

 

In a recent study, Piffer and Lynn (2022) have found regional differences in Italy for alleles associated with educational attainment. They used two datasets: one encompassing 129 Italian individuals and the other 947. All of these individuals had all four grandparents born in the same part of Italy (this requirement was imposed to eliminate the effects of recent interregional migration). When the authors grouped the data into three large regions—North, Central, and South—they found “a clear north-south gradient, with central Italians occupying an intermediate position.” There was more overlap between central and southern Italians than between central and northern Italians.

 

The datasets were too small to show genetic differences within each of the three large regions. If we go back to the INVALSI data, we see that academic achievement is much stronger in the North-Northeast (Lombardia, Trentino, Veneto, Friuli) than in the Northwest (Valle d’Aosta, Liguria).

 

At first thought, that geographic pattern may seem counter-intuitive. In northern Italy, industrialization began in the northwest and came later to the northeast: “the diffusion of industrialisation that characterised the northwestern area of the country largely excluded Venetia and, especially, the South” (Wikipedia 2022b). If economic development had driven cognitive evolution on the Italian Peninsula, why would this evolution have gone farther in the northeast? Why would it be negatively associated with industrialization?

 

Because the Industrial Revolution put a stop to cognitive evolution. It severed the link between economic success and reproductive success. Previously, businesses were family-run, and the family provided the workforce. Successful business owners were incentivized to have larger families, and their children would have the means to marry at a younger age. Then, in the late 19th century, that stage of economic development began to give way to industrial capitalism. Financial success no longer translated into early marriage and large families who could help with the work. If more workers were needed, they would simply be hired. Business owners now tended to have smaller families because of the high maintenance costs of middle-class children (Canlorbe and Frost 2020; Frost 2018).

 

Cognitive evolution thus ended earlier in the Northwest of Italy than in the Northeast. By the same token, interregional migration has had more time to erode the cognitive advantage that evolved in the Northwest. Yes, the datasets were limited to people who had all four grandparents born in the region, but, for most people, that limitation would not eliminate the effects of interregional migration before the mid-20th century.

 

 

References

 

Canlorbe, G., and P. Frost (2020). Why are human groups so different? American Renaissance, March 20. https://www.amren.com/features/2020/03/why-are-human-groups-so-different/  

 

Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World, 1st ed. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA.

 

De Rosa, L. (1979). Property Rights, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth in Southern Italy in the XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries. Journal of European Economic History 8(3): 531-551.

 

Frost, P. (2018). Rise of the West. Part II. Evo and Proud, December 27

https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2018/12/rise-of-west-part-ii.html  

 

Lee, J. J., Wedow, R., Okbay, A., Kong, E., Maghzian, O., Zacher, et al. (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics 50(8): 1112-1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3

 

Piffer, D. (2019). Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment and Intelligence Inferred from Gwas Hits: A Replication of Previous Findings Using Recent Data. Psych 1(1): 55-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010005    

 

Piffer, D., & Lynn, R. (2022). In Italy, North-South Differences in Student Performance Are Mirrored by Differences in Polygenic Scores for Educational Attainment. Mankind Quarterly 62(4), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.46469/mq.2022.62.4.2  

 

Wikipedia (2022a). Economy of Italy – Southern Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy#Southern_question  

 

Wikipedia (2022b). Economic history of Italy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Italy  

 

Monday, March 28, 2022

Cognitive ability of indigenous Arctic peoples

 


In cold environments, human cognitive ability was an adaptation not to resource scarcity, as is often claimed, but to an abundance of resources that could be exploited only through a high level of planning, coordination, and tool development.

Caribou on Thelon River (Wikicommons – Cameron Hayne)

 

 

A reader has asked me, via Twitter: “Do you have any articles as to why the IQ of Siberian and Inuit peoples is lower than Northern Europeans despite similarly cold climate?”

 

Actually, indigenous Arctic peoples seem to be close to the global maximum of cognitive ability. It is also true, however, that the maximum is at more temperate latitudes, specifically within two broad regions:

 

·         East Asia – this is a “plateau” of populations with consistently high mean IQ, i.e., Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. For Unz (2013), this plateau arose during the time of recorded history through the upper classes continually replacing the lower classes: “Each generation, the poorest disappeared, the less affluent failed to replenish their numbers, and all those lower rungs on the economic ladder were filled by the downwardly mobile children of the fecund wealthy.” A secondary cause was the imperial examination for civil-service jobs: "in China the proud family traditions would boast generations of top-scoring test-takers, along with the important government positions that they had received as a result."

 

·         Europe – this second plateau likewise arose during the time of recorded history, at first slowly during antiquity and then more rapidly during the late medieval to early modern period (Clark 2007; Woodley 2017). The latter increase was driven by expansion of the middle class, particularly by craftspeople who participated in the proto-industrial revolution of the 15th to early 19th centuries. There are thus “peaks” in the plateau, notably Ashkenazi Jews and the descendants of cottage-industry communities in Ulster, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Brittany, Flanders, Alsace, Westphalia, Saxony, the Zurich uplands, the Piedmont, and Lombardy (Cochran et al. 2006; Dunkel et al. 2019; Frost 2007; Piffer 2019; Seccombe 1992, pp. 205-217). Those communities contributed disproportionately to European population growth through early marriage and high childbearing, thus changing Europe’s cognitive landscape (Seccombe 1992, pp. 205-217). 


      The fatalism of serfs gave way to the rationalism of craftspeople: "The life-choices that structure family continuity through time had more predictable consequences; critical objectives could be achieved more regularly. Increasingly, the problem of uncontrolled randomness in life's fortunes was addressed through the calculus of probabilities, rather than through ritual, prayer, pleas for divine intercession, and stoicism ..." (Seccombe 1992, p. 212). 


There is another high-IQ peak among the Finns (Piffer 2019), for reasons that remain uncertain (Late transition from hunting to farming? Absence of serfdom?).

 

If cold climates select for cognitive ability, why do we find maximum cognitive ability at temperate latitudes? This is the apparent contradiction I address in my 2019 paper. In short, I argue that cold climates selected for cognitive ability only when humans were hunter-gatherers. This selection was driven not by resource scarcity, as is often claimed, but rather by an abundance of resources that could be exploited only through a high level of planning, coordination, and tool development (Frost 2019). With the advent of farming, and increasing social complexity, the pressure of selection shifted southward to environments that imposed new cognitive challenges: literacy and numeracy, state formation, laws and law enforcement, social stratification, expansion of the built environment, growth of music, literature, and the fine arts, development of religious beliefs and practices, construction of roads and other infrastructures, and so on.

 

This cognitive evolution initially went farther in the Middle East. Then, sometime around the 16th century, that region seemed to hit a ceiling as the pace of social complexification slowed down. The slowdown had several causes. First, there was demographic stagnation and loss of food production, due to the cumulative effects of erosion, salinization, and overgrazing. Second, there were ideological constraints. Although Islam was not alone in seeking to limit the free expression of ideas, it was more effective than Christianity in preventing the rise of a secular intellectual class that could spur progress in science and technology. Third, a true market economy failed to develop in the Middle East. The concept of trade was widely understood, but production of goods and services remained mostly within the household, i.e., family members, servants and, more broadly, relatives and in-laws. As a result, the market could not replace kinship as the main organizing principle of society.

 

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, cognitive evolution continued in Europe and East Asia because their lower classes were continually replaced, demographically, by their middle and upper classes. This process, described by Gregory Clark for England and Ron Unz for China, has three key elements:

 

1. Social class correlates positively with IQ.

 

2. Social class correlates positively with reproductive success. Lower classes fail to reproduce themselves, whereas higher classes more than reproduce themselves.

 

3. There are no barriers to downward social mobility. Lower classes are thus continually replaced by the demographic overflow of higher classes (Clark 2007; Unz 2013).

 

These three elements are not universal. Hunter-gatherers and simple farming societies have little or no social stratification. Other societies are stratified but have no State that can monopolize the use of violence. There is instead an ongoing free-for-all that selects for ruthlessness, charisma, and the ability to mobilize male violence. Finally, some societies are so stratified that downward mobility is impossible. Social classes are permanent “castes.”

 

In sum, cognitive evolution was initially driven by cold climate at higher latitudes and later by increasing social complexity at lower latitudes. Some higher-latitude groups then moved south to exploit the opportunities being created by increased social complexity. Those groups were not the ones who initiated the transition to farming, sedentism, and social complexity. Instead, they arrived after the fact, being cognitively pre-adapted for the opportunities that others had created and thus better able to pursue this evolutionary trajectory (Frost 2019).

 

Studies of cognitive ability in Arctic peoples

 

To return to the original question, indigenous Arctic peoples seem to be close to the global maximum of cognitive ability, but the evidence is limited and questionable. This situation has three causes:

 

·         Difficulties in administering IQ tests to people who are unfamiliar not only with modern concepts but also with the modern question-and-answer paradigm. Traditionally, indigenous Arctic people learn not by asking questions but by observing a “master” and then copying whatever he or she does. Asking questions can also be impolite, especially if too many are asked in rapid succession. I should point out that the same difficulties used to exist in Western societies. People in Britain and North America were unfamiliar with standardized written tests until the rise of publicly funded schools and competitive civil-service exams in the late 19th century (Wikipedia 2022). It wasn’t because people got smarter that mean IQ rose during the 20th century. They just got better at taking tests.

 

·         Ideological constraints. IQ research was discouraged in the Soviet Union, partly because of the dominant belief in environmental determinism and partly because of a desire to avoid stigmatizing certain national groups. A ban on intelligence testing was thus imposed in 1936 and gradually lifted only in the 1960s and early 1970s (Grigoriev and Lynn 2009).

 

·         Lack of research on alleles associated with educational attainment. This avenue of research offers a better measure of innate cognitive ability but is still in its infancy with respect to Arctic peoples. I know of only one relevant study. Piffer (2013) found that the Met allele at COMT, a gene linked to executive function, working memory, and intelligence, is more frequent in farming societies than in hunter-gatherers, with one interesting exception: "hunter-gatherers living at high latitudes (Inuit) show high frequencies of the Met allele, possibly due to the higher pressure on technological skills and planning abilities posed by the adverse climatic conditions near the North Pole."

 

 

Siberia (Evenk, Altai, Yakuts)

 

In Siberia, IQ tests were conducted in 1929 and later in 2015-17. The first period saw testing among the Evenk of the northeast and the Altai of the south.

 

When a Binet test was administered to 5 Evenk children 7 to 19 years old, the mean score was 70.16. The study’s author reported that the children had trouble understanding units of measurement and number.

 

He reported that when Evenk children were questioned about devices for measurement, they did not have the concept of an absolute unit of measurement. They thought that the unit changed with the material measured. Bulanow [the author] reported further that when he asked Evenk adults how many children they had “It was difficult, almost impossible, to get from parents precise information as to how many of their children were alive, how many of their children had died, what was the age of their children, and so on.” (Grigoriev and Lynn 2009, p. 449)

 

When a Binet test was administered to 52 Altai children 8 to 20 years old, the mean score was 66.9. Again, the subjects had problems with units of measurement: “when they were questioned about the length of a meter, the Altai would often ask: “Which meter?” They thought that the meter in one shop could be longer than in another” (Grigoriev and Lynn 2009, p. 450). Nonetheless, adult Altai showed remarkable aptitudes in other areas of life:

 

Although adult Altai performed calculations poorly at the time of study, they showed a remarkable ability for visual estimation of large quantities. A herdsman, who could count only to 20–30, noticed very well the absence of one horse, cow or sheep in a herd of many hundreds. He looked at a huge herd and noted that a particular cow was absent. Another example of the great visualization ability of the Altai was that they could remember and showed the way through wild territory, where they had been only once many years previously (Grigoriev and Lynn 2009, p. 450)

 

In recent years, there has been a renewed effort to study cognitive ability among indigenous Siberian peoples:

 

·         Shibaev and Lynn (2015) tested 29 Evenk children and found a mean score of 80. Also tested were 13 ethnic Russian children, who had grown up under similar conditions. Their mean score was 85.

·         Shibaev and Lynn (2017) tested 287 Yakut children and 52 ethnic Russian children from eastern Siberia. The mean score was 97.0 for the Yakuts and 97.9 for the ethnic Russians.

·         Shibaev et al. (2020) tested 518 Yakut children and 956 ethnic Russian children. The age range was wider than in previous studies, and the IQ difference between the two groups seemed, in general, to be greater at younger ages than at older ones. At 9 years of age the Russians had a 3 point advantage over the Yakuts, whereas at 17 this advantage was zero. Yakut children may have a slower rate of cognitive maturation. There is also some doubt as to the comparability of the two groups, since the Russians came largely from a city (Tomsk), while the Yakuts came from a city (Yakutsk) and a small town (Vilyuysk).

 

The authors note that the differences between ethnic Russians and indigenous Siberians can be largely explained by an urban-rural divide:

 

[…] for both Russians and Yakuts the IQs of the city samples were higher than the IQs of the village samples. For the Russians, there was a difference of 10.5 IQ points between the combined city samples and the village sample, while for the Yakuts the difference was 4.4 points. The higher IQs of the city samples is a common result found in many previous studies reporting that urban populations typically obtain higher IQs than rural populations. (Shibaev and Lynn 2017)

 

Shibaev and Lynn (2017) attribute this urban-rural divide to differential migration: smarter people move to the city, and dumber people stay home in the village. I would argue that villagers are less familiar with modern concepts and the modern question-and-answer paradigm.

 

Arctic North America (Inuit)

 

Like indigenous Siberians, the Inuit (Eskimos) display an unusual ability to find their way across vast expanses of territory, a task that requires remembering huge amounts of visuospatial data. Adults are reported to have an "extraordinary ability to find their way through what appears to be a featureless terrain by remembering visual configurations [...]. According to some reports, such memories persist for long periods of time. Elderly hunters have succeeded in guiding parties through terrain seen only in their youth" (Kleinfeld 1973, p. 344)

 

Nonetheless, Inuit have done poorly in most IQ studies, especially in older studies of traditional Inuit. Kleinfeld (1973) cites several reasons:

 

Unfamiliarity with test-taking:


Eskimos' performance on standardized tests may be lowered because of their unfamiliarity with test-taking conventions and because of cultural biases of the tests. Eskimos, for example, may find it difficult to view a trivial, pointless task such as copying a design or running through a finger maze as worthy of serious concentration and maximum effort.

 

Racial context of test-taking


Eskimos, especially young males, have become increasingly antagonistic to any sort of testing and research, which they view as another form of White exploitation. Co-operation, if given at all, may be perfunctory, resulting in extremely low test scores.

 

Extreme caution during test-taking


Eskimos, especially males, have been socialized into extreme caution before making a judgment. The hunter is taught never to take risks, never to call out a hasty evaluation because the penalty can be swift death not only for himself but also for others who rely on his decision. […] Especially more traditional Eskimos tend to have a slow, cautious response style which may depress their scores on speeded figural tests.

 

Slower rate of cognitive maturation


[There is] some evidence that Eskimos' peak performance on figural tests occurs later than that of Western groups. [This] raises the possibility of a slower rate of cognitive maturation among Eskimos which would be consistent with their somewhat slower rate of physical maturation […]. If this is the case, the usual age-matched comparisons between Western and Eskimo children on figural tests may be misleading.

 

In their reviews of the literature, Kleinfeld (1973) and Taylor and Skanes (1976) note that Inuit generally outperform Whites on visual discrimination and spatial tests. Interestingly, Inuit children do almost as well as non-Inuit children on English spelling tests while doing poorly in other aspects of English, perhaps because they memorize the shapes of words. On the other hand, they underperform White children on verbal-educational and inductive reasoning tests. The latter finding may reflect lack of familiarity with English in earlier studies. When Taylor and Skanes (1976a) tested Inuit and White first graders for vocabulary and arithmetic, using the Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence, they found no significant differences between the two groups in spatial, verbal-educational, and inductive reasoning abilities. When the same researchers tested a larger sample of Inuit and White children from different age groups, using a series of digit span tests and Raven’s progressive matrices, they found that the Inuit children caught up with the White children with increasing age on the digit span tests and that the Inuit children outperformed the White children on the Raven’s progressive matrices (Taylor and Skanes 1976b).

 

Wright et al. (1996) tested the IQ of Inuit children in Arctic Quebec during the first two grades of school, using Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM). Mean scores were consistently higher than age-appropriate U.S. norms and were comparable with data for White children in southern Quebec. In addition, the scores of children with two Inuit parents did not differ significantly from those of children with mixed Inuit/White heritage. 

 

Nonetheless, Inuit children do worse at school than other children, having not only lower rates of academic achievement but also higher dropout and suicide rates. For Clifton and Roberts (1988), the reason is inferior self-perception of their ability and less active involvement in the educational process. This mindset may be rooted in the traditional Inuit attitude toward education, where the “student” simply observes and copies the “master.”

 

In sum, the Inuit seem to have about the same level of cognitive ability as people of European origin, with perhaps some interesting differences: superior visuospatial skills, higher risk aversion, slower cognitive maturation, and a more imitative and less inquisitive approach to learning. It is still unclear whether they have lower verbal-educational and inductive reasoning abilities. In their review, McShane and Berry (1988, p. 392) conclude that indigenous Arctic peoples do well relative to Euroamerican norms, showing “high performance on both piagetian and psychometric tests of visually based spatial, analytic, disembedding, and inductive abilities.” The two researchers attribute reports of lower verbal ability to second-language familiarity with the test language. Clearly, more research is needed, if only to adapt the northern educational system to Inuit needs.

 

It must be said that the Inuit are ill-suited to the Western model of education and, more broadly, to the Western model of sedentism, individualism, and asociality. Young Inuit feel useless in that kind of society, and all too many end up committing suicide.

 

Conclusion and discussion

 

We have only a few studies of cognitive ability among indigenous Arctic peoples. This paucity is due only in part to methodological problems. In the Soviet Union, all IQ research ceased between 1936 and the 1960s. It has recommenced among indigenous Arctic peoples only over the past decade. Meanwhile, similar research in Canada and the U.S. has been nonexistent since the 1990s.

 

If we look at the existing research, we may doubt whether the subjects were fully familiar with test-taking and the modern question-and-answer paradigm. Another problem is that indigenous Arctic children seem to have a slower rate of cognitive maturation. If Yakut subjects are still catching up to Russian subjects at the age of 17, it might be more appropriate to compare the two groups at an older age. In practice, this would be difficult because young adults start following different life paths after 17. Finally, indigenous Arctic peoples may allocate their mental capacities differently, being better, for instance, at processing visuospatial data than other kinds of information. Since IQ tests have been designed for Western children, the test design may not correspond to the mental tasks that some non-Western groups prioritize.

 

Yes, dear reader, I hear you. If people do well on one cognitive task, they should do well on all others, shouldn’t they? Isn’t that what the g factor is all about? In other words, people will tap into the same mental capacity for any cognitive task.

 

The relative strength of the g factor, however, has been calculated from subjects in Western or Westernized societies. Does it have the same strength across different mental domains among people who until recently were nomadic hunters? Anthropologists, like John Berry, have argued that hunters allocate much more of their mental capacity to visuospatial orientation:

 

Hunters, by this way of thinking, require good visual acuity, keen disembedding skills and a well-developed sense of spatial orientation. To hunt successfully, the hunter must be able to discern the object of the quest (which is often embedded in a complex visual landscape), then disembed the object, and finally return to home base. In contrast, agriculturalists need not develop these particular skills, but rather they need to invest in other areas of development, such as conservation (in both the economic and the Piagetian senses) and close social interactions. (Berry 2008, p. 3)

 

It would be interesting to find out whether these skills have become hardwired to some degree through gene-culture coevolution. Are hunting peoples inherently better at orienting themselves in space? Did vast expanses of land favor the success of people who could more easily find their way across vast expanses of land? To answer that question, John Berry launched a project in the late 1980s with the geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. They wished to recruit participants among the Inuit of northern Canada and use aptitude for soapstone carving as a means to measure visuospatial skills:

 

With most individuals having had a reasonably fair chance and stimulation to become artists, one is in a better condition to study possible genetic factors contributing to artistic talent, if any. Another great advantage of carrying out this study among the Inuit is the frequency with which adoptions (also early ones, at birth) occur in this population. Frequencies of adoptions reported during the meeting varied from 15% to 30%. Adoptions allow one to distinguish cultural from biological inheritance by studying correlations of adopted children with foster relatives on one hand and biological relatives on the other. (Berry and Cavalli-Sforza 1986)

 

Cavalli-Sforza was thinking, here, along the lines of gene-culture coevolution. He had in fact been one of the founders of that paradigm, although he preferred the term “dual inheritance theory.” Now, he would have a chance to investigate it in the field.

 

Then, suddenly, he backed out of the project. For “health reasons.” Yet neither his biography nor his autobiography mentions any health problems during that period of his life.

 

 

References

 

Berry, J.W. (2008). Models of Ecocultural Adaptation and Cultural Transmission: The Example of Inuit Art, paper presented at the conference Adaptation et socialisation des minoritiés culturelles en région, June 3-4, Quebec City.

 

Berry, J.W., and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. (1986). Cultural and Genetic Influences on Inuit Art. Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.

 

Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

 

Clifton, R.A. and L.W. Roberts. (1988). Social psychological dispositions and academic achievement of Inuit and non-Inuit students. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 34(4): 332–343.

 

Cochran, G., J. Hardy, and H. Harpending. (2006). Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science 38(5): 659–693. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932005027069

 

Dunkel, C.S., M.A. Woodley of Menie, J. Pallesen, and E.O.W. Kirkegaard.  (2019). Polygenic scores mediate the Jewish phenotypic advantage in educational attainment and cognitive ability compared with Catholics and Lutherans. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 13(4): 366-375.  https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ebs0000158

 

Frost, P. (2007). Natural selection in proto-industrial Europe. Evo and Proud, November 16

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2007/11/natural-selection-in-proto-industrial.html  

 

Frost, P. (2019). The Original Industrial Revolution. Did Cold Winters Select for Cognitive Ability? Psych 1(1): 166-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010012  

 

Grigoriev, A, and R. Lynn. (2009). Studies of socioeconomic and ethnic differences in intelligence in the former Soviet Union in the early twentieth century. Intelligence 37: 447-452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.005  

 

Kleinfeld, J.S. (1973). Intellectual Strengths in Culturally Different Groups: An Eskimo Illustration. Review of Educational Research 43(3): 341-359.

https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543043003341  

 

McShane, D., and J.W. Berry. (1988). “Native North Americans: Indian and Inuit Abilities.” In: S.H. Irvine and J.W. Berry (eds.) Human Abilities in Cultural Context (pp. 385-426), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Piffer, D. (2013). Correlation of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism with latitude and a hunter-gather lifestyle suggests culture-gene coevolution and selective pressure on cognition genes due to climate. Anthropological Science 121(3): 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1537/ase.130731  

 

Piffer, D. (2019). Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment and Intelligence Inferred from Gwas Hits: A Replication of Previous Findings Using Recent Data. Psych 1(1): 55-75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010005    

 

Seccombe, W. (1992). A Millennium of Family Change. Feudalism to Capitalism in Northwestern Europe. London: Verso.

 

Shibaev, V., A. Grigoriev, E. Valueva, and A. Karlin. (2020). Differential Item Functioning on Raven’s SPM+ Amongst Two Convenience Samples of Yakuts and Russians. Psych 2(1):44-51. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych2010005

 

Shibaev, V. and R. Lynn. (2015). The Intelligence of the Evenk/Tungus of the Russian Far East. Mankind Quarterly 56(2): 202-207. http://doi.org/10.46469/mq.2015.56.2.7  

 

Shibaev, V. and R. Lynn. (2017). The Intelligence of Yakuts and Ethnic Russians in Yakutia. Mankind Quarterly 57(4): 680-686. http://doi.org/10.46469/mq.2017.57.4.11  

 

Taylor, L.J., and G.R. Skanes. (1976a). Cognitive abilities in Inuit and White children from similar environments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 8(1): 1-8.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0081930  

 

Taylor, L.J., and G.R. Skanes. (1976b). Level I and level II intelligence in Inuit and White children from Similar Environments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 7(2): 157-168.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002202217672004

 

Unz, R. (2013). How Social Darwinism made modern China, The American Conservative, March/April, 16-27. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/  

 

Wikipedia (2022). Test (assessment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_(assessment)#West  

 

Woodley, M.A., S. Younuskunju, B. Balan, and D. Piffer. (2017). Holocene selection for variants associated with general cognitive ability: comparing ancient and modern genomes. Twin Research and Human Genetics 20: 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2017.37   

 

Wright, S.C., D.M. Taylor, and K.M. Ruggiero. (1996). Examining the Potential for Academic Achievement among Inuit Children: Comparisons on the Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27(6): 733-753.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022196276006