Rushton and Jensen (2005) is densely packed with information since it is a survey article covering 30 years of research on a very active and passionately debated hypothesis set in motion by Jensen (1969). I am reading it as we converse. There are literally ten different categories of evidence in their review.
A Google search turned up hundreds of scholarly articles and books that cite the article. I downloaded a PDF copy of Wicherts (2009), which argues in opposition (that genetics plays no role).
Reliability: I am a trained social scientist, so I know some statistics and know how to read scholarly articles. But I'm not familiar with the particular statistical methods used in this field and I am completely unfamiliar with what appears to be an extensive literature that will take me months to become familiar with. After I finish Rushton (2005), I will focus on finding the latest articles on this topic to see what the scientists in this field think currently. There definitely is opposition. I suspect that "partially genetics" is winning but won't know until I review the latest articles.
The overlap is there but the difference is shocking. Only one out of 6 sub-Sahara Africans score above the median White person.
For most jobs, intelligence isn't really going to be a major consideration for an employer. But intelligence does correlate with social skills, propensity to commit crime, reliability, etc. Race is so easy to observe, and allegedly is such a strong "signal" of the hidden unknowns that employers do care about, that employers would definitely consider race if they are allowed to do so.
Keep in mind that even if IQ measured only one of the nine kinds of "intelligence", it might well be highly correlated with all nine kinds. If you have more synapses and they fire faster, you are not just going to be better at math. You might well be better at everything.
I might be an extreme example of just that. My aptitude tests as a boy of about 12 were very high across about a dozen different kinds of aptitude. (I was in approximately the same percentile in every category.) My parents told me at the time that this was unusual; that most people are particularly gifted in one or two areas and are much lower in the remaining categories.
Ref:
Jelte M. Wicherts ⁎, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans" (2009)
Thanks for the long and detailed answer.
We are talking in two different levels here. One - this research, the results and any contradictory researches - at the moment from what you wrote I can't know for sure that this is the case.
Second level - if it is true, what does it mean? It seems that we don't agree on that one.
For example your sentence - "But intelligence does correlate with social skills, propensity to commit crime, reliability, etc". - I don't know about it, do you have any proof for that?
I met a lot of extremely intelligent people in my life that their social skills were highly lacking. I met extremely intelligent people that did crimes. I don't see how IQ relates to social skills and reliability.
This sentence that you wrote- "Keep in mind that even if IQ measured only one of the nine kinds of "intelligence", it might well be highly correlated with all nine kinds". - again do you have any proof for that?
It doesn't surprise me that you are highly intelligent. How would you describe yourself in relation to emotional intelligence, social skills etc'? of course we can't take anything out of it as you are only one person.
We are conversing through a straw. I'm not intentionally ignoring anything that you say. But I am trying to be concise in responses. I wouldn't say that we disagree about policy because this hypothesis is totally new for me; I haven't had time to to validate it, to digest it first as a possibility and then as a fact, and to consider what my policy opinions are if it is a fact.
I wish more people would join in. I'd like to just be silent and see what other people think. I don't really want to debate anything or defend any position. As a scientist, what might be true has always been more important to me than what is true. Right now, I'm stunned by this new information about what MIGHT be true.
Fair enough! I enjoyed the conversation, and yes, lets see what other people think. I'm like you, I prefer to ask questions and explore, but I might have misunderstand you, as at seemed to me that you are already in the conclusion domain - where you decided that white men are being discriminated and employers should hire people based on race.. Now I see that it's not the case (or I hope anyway).
Good night!
Yes, that is not the case. This topic has captured my interest and I am looking forward to being a student of it. It's been 40 years since I've read social science literature.