The Smart Set (Part II)

The Critics of Intelligence and Test Anxiety

Photo by Nguyen Dang Hoang Nhu on Unsplash

---

This is essay, the second in a series, is drawn from Edward Dutton’s book Making Sense of Race (2020). See Part I.

---

The modern IQ test was first developed at the turn of the 20th century by Alfred Binet (1857-1911), who had been commissioned by the French state to evaluate young people entering the newly compulsory education system. This led to the subsequent Binet-Simon scale, which is still the basis for standardized mental assessment. When the United States entered the First World War in 1917, it evaluated some 1.75 million draftees through the U.S. Army’s Alpha and Beta Tests.¹ Data from these huge samples were analyzed by eminent psychologists such as Carl Brigham (1890-1943)² and Lewis Terman (1877-1956), the latter writing the first major longitudinal study of intelligence in America.³

The concept of IQ, as well as the tests themselves, has always been contentious, especially as it became an important part of Western nations’ efforts to become "classless," "meritocratic" societies. Brigham and Terman used their data to explore issues of race, immigration, and even eugenics. But IQ testing has also been motivated by what could be called "egalitarian" ideals. Harvard President James Bryant Conant (1893-1978), working with Brigham, advocated for the Scholastic Aptitude Test as a "pure intelligence test," which could identify talented students across the country who didn’t have the privilege of attending prep schools on the eastern seaboard. And certainly, then and now, the SAT strongly correlates with IQ tests, and is thus a practical gauge of g.⁴ Similarly, IQ testing for public and private employment has sometimes been promoted as a means of cutting through racial bigotry in hiring practices. That said, as we will see, testing has ultimately been rejected by institutions because it consistently reveals the reality of race.

This problem came to a head in America in the ’60s and ‘70s. In 1963, the Motorola television factory in Chicago denied a job to an African-American who had scored poorly on an IQ test. The Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission ordered Motorola to hire him anyway, setting a precedent for the political overriding of standardized measures of intelligence. Some 15 years later, in the Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled against an explicit quota system, in which certain places in California's medical-school class were set aside for minority applicants; however, the opinion of Justice Lewis Powell allowed for race to be a "factor" in admissions decisions. These ambiguous outcomes have led to an increasingly Byzantine regime in hiring and academic admissions in the U.S., as well as in Western Europe: race, test scores, school marks, "diversity," and other factors are weighed against one another—though with no explicit quota in place.

Since the controversies in the ‘60s and ‘70s, test-taking companies have made efforts to avoid "bias" in the way that questions are articulated: stereotypically White names and activities—some early tests are said to have included questions mentioned "yachting"—have been eliminated, and more supposedly inclusive names and phrases are employed. But after decades of this "neutralization" process, little has changed.

Table 7.3. SAT Performance By Race/Ethnicity For the Class of 2018

With regard to the SAT—which is still widely taken by American students planning to attend university—the gap between Black and White test-takers has not budged in decades; in fact, it has grown slightly.⁵ The SAT measures literacy, numeracy, and reading comprehension and has traditionally been based on a 1,600 point scale: 800 points for Verbal, 800 for Math. For a 10-year period (2005-2015), the test was split into three 800-point sections: Evidence-Based Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In 2015, the average score (among 1.6 million test-takers) was 1,490 out of 2,400, with a standard deviation of around 115 points on the separate parts of the exam. With the proper adjustments to reflect different scoring systems, the measurable intelligence of American students desiring to take part in higher education has remained relatively unchanged over the past four decades.⁶

The results for 2015, broken down by race and ethnicity, can be found in Table 7.3.⁷ The gap between White and Black test-takers is roughly 100 points on each section. The gap between Blacks and Asians is more striking, particularly on the Math portion, in which the average difference is 170 points. Breaking down these scores even further, The Brookings Institute reported:

[A]mong top scorers—those scoring between a 750 and 800—60 percent are Asian and 33 percent are white, compared to 5 percent Latino and 2 percent black. Meanwhile, among those scoring between 300 and 350, 37 percent are Latino, 35 percent are black, 21 percent are white, and 6 percent are Asian.⁸

In other words, the overall American intelligence distribution is best understood as separate distributions of racial groups. And these reflect Life History Theory. Races that originated in environments that select for a fast LHS are clumped at the bottom of the distribution, since intelligence was simply of lesser value in their evolutionary histories. Whites and Northeast Asians, who originate in "harsh yet predictable" environments—with Northeast Asians being the most K-selected—appear at the top of the distribution, and are thus best prepared to succeed in an advanced technological society. Though scores have varied slightly across generations, the standard deviation difference between Blacks and Whites has stubbornly persisted—and has remained an obsession among school reformers and scholars of education, as we shall see.

Critiques of IQ

Many criticisms have been leveled against IQ tests, and even the concept of intelligence itself, but none of the arguments pass scrutiny. Some have been expressed with great profundity; others amount to little more than hand-waving. In the end, IQ tests have been found to have high predictive validity for school achievement (and, thus, other measures of cognitive ability), occupational status, and criminality (negatively).⁹ They cannot be argued to be substantially "culturally biased," as they correlate with objective measures, such as reaction times (negatively) and cranial capacity (positively): they correlate with how quick you are to respond to stimuli and simply how big your brain is—unsurprisingly, since the brain is a thinking muscle. The robust negative correlation with reaction times—how quickly you react to a cue, such as a light being switched on; the cleverer you are, the shorter your reaction time—implies that intelligence can be substantially understood as a high functioning nervous system.¹⁰

The validity of IQ tests has been specifically criticized when it comes to comparing different races. Richard Lynn’s meta-analysis of twin studies found that intelligence had a heritability, on adult samples, of 0.83.¹¹ The environmental component appears to relate to an intellectually stimulating environment, especially during key growth phases.¹² The heritability of a child’s IQ is much lower because it reflects, in part, the environment created for it by adults, who may have higher or lower IQs than does the child. Only when a person reaches adulthood, and starts to create his own environment consistent with his innate intelligence, does the heritability rise to 0.83. Such numerical correlations, it should be noted, express the relationship between two variables or the extent to which one predicts the other. This can be either a positive or negative relationship. A correlation of 1 means that one variable always predicts the other. "Statistical significance" is how scientists test, using calculations based on the strength of the correlation and the size of the sample, whether or not the correlation is merely a fluke. It is accepted, based on this, that if we can be at least 95 percent certain it is not a fluke, then the relationship is statistically significant (p≤0.05) and thus real.

It might be argued that intelligence is highly heritable, but, even so, environmental factors might explain, for example, why Blacks in the U.S. have a lower average IQ than Whites. This seems most unlikely, however, and the reasons for this have been set out by American philosopher Michael Levin in his book Why Race Matters.¹³ If the IQ of White Americans is set at 100, then the average African- American score is 85. The SD difference between White and Black IQ scores in the U.S. is evident by the age of three. The earlier a difference becomes evident, the more likely it is to be genetic.¹⁴: Interracial adoption studies have shown that Blacks who as children were adopted by White parents have IQs in adulthood that have no relation to that of their adoptive parents; however, their adult IQs are very similar to that of their biological parents.¹⁵ The more resistant a difference is to interventions, the more likely it is to be genetic. J. Philippe Rushton has noted that Black people have been assessed for millennia, by Moorish explorers, for example, to have low average intelligence, and attempts to boost their intelligence, based on environmentalist assumptions, have had no significant impact.¹⁶

Others have suggested that intelligence tests, and the SAT in particular, should be better understood as "wealth tests," which, in fact, measure "privilege," not intellect¹⁷ In the American context, Whites typically grow up in wealthier families and in more desirable neighborhoods and schools, with greater access to test preparation and tutoring. And unquestionably, students’ SAT scores track closely with their household income and wealth, with the educational attainment of their parents also being a significant factor. This can be seen in Table 7.4.¹⁸ But even if we accept that standardized tests reflect wealth, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the SAT is, therefore, a "wealth test." In many ways, it’s more accurate to say that wealth is an intelligence test. At its best, heritable intelligence operates in a cycle between parents and children: intelligent people seek wealth, status, and education, which they pass on—both genetically and environmentally—to their children, who then pass it on to theirs, and so on.

Table 7.4. Mean SAT Mathematics and Verbal Scores for College Bound Americans in 2003

Moreover, the data above demonstrate that the "Black/White gap" is far more a factor of race than wealth and class. Whites from poor families score at levels of Blacks from families who are well off. Specially, students who hail from families with incomes around $20,000 per year—which is at or below the poverty line—have roughly the same intellectual profile as African-Americans from families with incomes upwards of $100,000.¹⁹ This reality comes into view in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4. 2003 SAT Math Scores for Black and White Americans, Broken Down by Family Income

As discussed above, IQ tests of various flavors can be divided into different subtests. Ability in each subtest varies in the degree to which it is genetic. Some subtests are more "culture fair" than others—in that they require less knowledge—and the more "culture fair" the subtest is, the better a measure of g it is, and the more genetic that measured component of IQ tends to be. Blacks score the best on the least "culture fair" components of the IQ test (Verbal). They score the worst on the most "culture fair" components (Math).²⁰ So, it cannot be argued that Blacks score worse than Whites on IQ tests because the tests somehow reflect "White culture." In addition, Arctic Peoples in the U.S., specifically Alaskan Natives—many of them living in highly impoverished conditions—score on average around six points higher on "culture fair" IQ tests than do African-Americans.²¹ The experiences of Native Americans (or American Indians) are quite distant from White American norms, as many live on reservations; nevertheless, they score, on average, one point higher than African- Americans. Northeast Asian Americans score on average five points higher than Whites, despite the fact that many are immigrants who learn English as a second language. Clearly, IQ tests are equally fair to different races and, within the U.S. as well as within other Western countries, they find that Blacks have the lowest IQ, followed by Whites, Northeast Asians, and, finally, Ashkenazi Jews.

One particularly fashionable argument against the validity of IQ tests is the concept of "stereotype threat.”²² The idea is that people who belong to a group believed to do badly on IQ tests—such as Black people—do badly because of their own expectations that they will do badly, which presumably stresses them out, reducing their performance. However, meta-analyses have found that this effect is mostly non-existent, and when it can be found—for certain people in certain situations—it is much smaller than the group differences it is used to explain away. Some studies have found that groups told that they will do badly on IQ tests seem to consequently do better than expected. There is also a huge problem of publication bias in this area, with studies disproving stereotype threat simply not being published.²³ In addition, the theory does not address the critical question of how systematically incorrect stereotypes could originate, as 75 percent of racial stereotypes have been found to be at least partly accurate and 50 percent completely accurate.²⁴ The simplest explanation, as has been empirically explored in detail by American psychologist Lee Jussim, is that stereotypes develop because they are broadly true.²⁵

Finally, some have attempted to undermine the concept of unified general intelligence. A popular alternative was proposed by American psychologist Howard Gardner.²⁶ Gardner argued that there are "multiple intelligences," such as bodily-kinesthetic, emotional, musical, and interpersonal. The problem with Gardner’s model is not the categories themselves but his assumption that these abilities are independent, as they are related to different parts of the brain, and that a person can be high in one or more "intelligences," while being below average in others. This is simply not the case. Higher IQ people perform better in most cognitive domains, and lower IQ people perform worse. Gardner’s assorted kinds of "intelligence" are either a misuse of the word "intelligence" or they are simply examples of narrow cognitive abilities underpinned by "intelligence" as normally defined. "Emotional intelligence" is a concept that has also been launched as a competitor to IQ or g. But the ability to deal with other people and solve social problems is positively correlated (though weakly) with IQ at about 0.3.²⁷ In other words, the more intelligent you are, the more empathetic you are; the better you can imagine what it would be like to walk in someone else’s shoes.

The Furor Over IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Richard Lynn has done more than anyone else to bring together studies of IQ on representative samples from around the world, both on traditional IQ tests and, more recently, international student assessment tests, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This test is administered every four years to representative samples of 15 year-olds from countries that participate in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which are mostly in North America and Western Europe. It correlates with national IQ scores at approximately 0.8.

National IQ scores were first presented by Lynn and Finnish political scientist Tatu Vanhanen (1929-2015) in their 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.²⁸ In August 2004, Vanhanen gave an interview about the book to the monthly magazine attached to Finland’s biggest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. He told the journalist, based on the best available figures at the time: "Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty." This summary of his academic research resulted in Finland’s "Ombudsman for Minorities," Mikko Puumalainen, demanding that Vanhanen be prosecuted for "inciting hatred against an ethnic group." The Finnish National Bureau of Investigation then announced that they were investigating whether there were grounds for prosecution and quickly discovered there were none. The incident, nevertheless, generated huge media coverage in Finland because Vanhanen’s son, Matti Vanhanen, had become Prime Minister the previous year.²⁹ Lynn and Vanhanen last updated their results, to take international student assessments into account, a decade later, and a few years before Vanhanen’s death, with the book Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences. They correlated national IQ not just with wealth but with numerous other markers of civilization, including health, low criminality, and low corruption.³⁰

Meanwhile, in 2006, Lynn had drawn upon their data from IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as well as other data, to present Race Differences in Intelligence, in which he calculated the average IQ of each of the races of classical anthropology.³¹ Race Differences in Intelligence was heavily criticized, as was IQ and the Wealth of Nations. So Lynn and Vanhanen used their 2012 volume as an opportunity to respond to their critics. A number of complaints were lodged against their methodology, in particular that it involved (in various cases) drawing upon small samples, different kinds of IQ tests, tests that are substitutes for IQ tests, and merely estimating the average IQ in countries where data is unavailable. In addition, critics tended to emphasize small mistakes, attempting to use these to imply that Lynn and Vanhanen’s entire work was suspect. This latter criticism can simply be regarded as an example of "composition fallacy": a small misstep is manipulatively employed to attempt to undermine a body of work. The former criticisms are broadly unnecessary—so- called "straw men." Lynn and Vanhanen had always conceded that there were a number of problems with their data, but argued that it is the best that we have and we, therefore, have no choice but to employ it. The deficiencies in these data have led some critics to argue that the results are, therefore, "meaningless." But Lynn and Vanhanen counter that their national differences in average IQ strongly correlate with national differences in sound proxies for IQ, such as education level, per capita wealth, law-abidingness, political stability, lack of corruption, and with health, among many others.³² Accordingly, we can be reasonably confident that Lynn’s estimates for national IQs, and by extension racial IQs, are reasonably accurate.

But Lynn and Vanhanen’s critics were right that there were discrepancies in their data; that there were many minor mistakes; and, often, that the methods through which their numbers were obtained were less than clear. Lynn and Vanhanen had data for 81 out of 185 countries and so had to estimate the IQs of the missing countries. Some national samples were small or elite, and some of their literature reviews were less than systematic. In response to this, all of Lynn’s IQ scores were recalculated from scratch, as well as updated, by German political scientist David Becker. These scores, along with precisely how they were reached, as well as exactly which tests were employed and why, were then placed in a constantly updated online database called View on IQ. Becker demonstrates that his own recalculation of all known national IQs correlates with Lynn and Vanhanen’s results at 0.87.³³ The most up-to-date IQ scores for almost every country in the world have been presented by Lynn and Becker in their 2019 book The Intelligence of Nations.³⁴ Accordingly, we can be confident in the validity of the average racial IQs presented by Lynn in the second edition of Race Differences in Intelligence, which was published in 2015.³⁵

There is also every reason to believe that these differences are genetic. Moving beyond Levin’s evidence for the genetic nature of race differences in intelligence, which we discussed earlier, Italian anthropologist Davide Piffer has found genetic evidence for average national IQs. Piffer found that the average frequency in the population of genetic variants that are correlated with extremely high educational attainment, something which is very strongly associated with high IQ, is correlated at 0.9 with national IQ.³⁶ In another study, Piffer replicated this finding with a sample of 1.1 million people from 52 countries.³⁷ In effect, Piffer provides extremely persuasive evidence that race differences in intelligence are overwhelmingly a reflection of genetic differences. In addition, average race differences in IQ strongly correlate with an objective measure: average race differences in cranial capacity. These data are found in Table 7.5.³⁸ The association between cranial capacity and IQ at the individual level is around 0.3,³⁹ so it should be no surprise that the IQ-cranial capacity nexus is less than 1, but it is nevertheless extremely high. The Pearson correlation—that is, a linear correlation between two sets of data—is 0.8 (p=<0.01).

Table 7.5. Race Differences in IQ and Cranial Capacity

The results raise a number of questions, which are well worth pausing to discuss. What should we make of the fact that the Sub-Saharan African IQ is 70, whereas the African-American IQ is 85? As already noted, this difference is likely explicable by two issues. African-Americans, by virtue of living in a developed country, benefit from a more stimulating environment and from better education, meaning that their average IQ is pushed closer to its phenotypic limit. In addition, African-Americans are a cline, being on average around 25 percent White,⁴⁰ due to intermixture on slave plantations, usually between a female slave and a male master.⁴¹ This is consistent with Y chromosome analyses showing that around 40 percent of African-American and Caribbean males have an ultimately European paternal lineage.⁴²

The IQ of the Arctic peoples and of Native Americans likely reflects the fact that neither the Arctic peoples nor the northern Native Americans developed agriculture. Agriculture would have elevated intelligence by placing a premium on planning for the future and cooperation, and by selecting out those with insufficient future-orientation. In addition, in that IQ is around 20 percent environmental, their relatively high levels of poverty would likely mean that their IQ is below its phenotypic maximum. The unexpectedly large cranial capacity of the Arctic peoples reflects the weakening positive manifold between K traits at a high level of K, and specifically adaptation to an ecology in which highly specialized abilities are more important than g, leading to a larger brain, without a parallel rise in g. For example, although the Inuit have lower IQ than do Europeans, they possess far superior spatial intelligence. This would be particularly useful in a context of snow-covered tundra, with few landmarks, needing to be negotiated on long hunting trips.⁴³

The anomaly of the Bushmen IQ being lower than that of the Australian Aborigines is possibly caused by the fact that the Bushmen are mostly a preliterate group. In some cases, Bushmen are employed as farm workers and have moved onto reservations, but in general they are foragers.⁴⁴ This means that their IQ has been measured by proxy, using the Draw-a-Man test. The Draw-a-Man test involves asking a subject to draw a man and then comparing it to what an average European would produce. This works insomuch as drawing ability is associated with intelligence and children’s drawings become more realistic with age. The problem is that Draw-a-Man correlates with IQ at between 0.2 and 0.8, and the correlation becomes weaker the older the child is.⁴⁵ As such, it may be that the Bushmen are more intelligent than the Aborigines or that they have elevated specialized abilities compared to them. The latter explanation seems more likely, in that Bushmen drawings are childlike—literally stick men—compared to those of Sub-Saharan African farm laborers, whose drawings are more realistic and involve considerable detail.⁴⁶ This would imply that we can be cautiously confident in employing the test as a proxy for race differences in IQ.

It is also worth noting, as part of our discussion of the "controversy" surrounding race and IQ research, that an attempt was actually made to suppress the evidence of race differences in cranial capacity. In The Mismeasure of Man (1981)⁴⁷, Harvard University celebrity paleontologist Stephen J. Gould (1941-2002) critiqued IQ, the concept of race, and the evidence for race differences in IQ. In particular, Gould attacked the work of English scientist Samuel Morton (1799-1851), claiming that Morton allowed unconscious biases to influence his measurements of the supposedly differing average cranial capacities of a sample of 1,000 skulls from different races. Gould conducted his own analysis of Morton’s data and reported that, in reality, there were no consistent race differences in cranial capacity.⁴⁸ The Mismeasure of Man publicized Gould’s findings, establishing them as the "truth" in the public mind: "No serious person," one might say, "thinks that there are race differences in skull size—or that this would have any connection to intelligence." However, in 2011, researchers re-measured the cranial volumes of 46 percent of the skulls in Morton’s collection. They also re-examined the statistical analyses conducted by Morton and by Gould. They found that, in contrast to what Gould had argued, Morton had not falsified or manipulated his measurements, and to the extent that there were measurement errors in Morton’s work, they actually exaggerated African cranial capacity in comparison to European. The authors also showed that Gould had only achieved his desired cancellation of Morton by tendentiously omitting specific sub-groups of skulls and by presenting incorrect calculations.

Tellingly, the authors then felt the need to praise Gould for his various attempts to combat "racism.”⁴⁹ This was presumably a ploy to deflect criticism from the politically correct mob, which would likely engage in fact-value conflation and assume that, because the authors reported a fact, they must, therefore, believe it to be a good thing. The authors, however, had shown that the celebrated "anti- racism" campaigner Stephen J. Gould had committed scientific fraud. Gould had falsified data on race differences in cranial capacity in order to force the accepted "facts" to conform to what he desired them to be. And Gould sullied the reputation of a genuine, truth- seeking scientist in order to achieve this goal.⁵⁰ In doing so, Gould proved that he was the very opposite of a genuine scientist.

1. Joel H. Spring, "Psychologists and the War: The Meaning of Intelligence in the alpha and Beta Tests," History of Education Quarterly, 12(1), 3-15.

2. Carl C. Brigham, A Study of American Intelligence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1923).

3. Lewis Terman, Genetic Studies of Genius: Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1925).

4. James R. Flynn, Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991), 146.

5. Jay Mathews, "The Bias Question," The Atlantic Monthly, November 2003, https:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/11/the-bias-question/302825/.

6. The College Board, which administers the SAT, introduced a new format for the test in 2016; average scores on both exams jumped some 30 points on each. This is, almost surely, a result of changes in the test, and not a sign of an increasing average intelligence.

7. The College Board, "Total Group Profile Report," https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/total-group-2015.pdf.

8. Richard V. Reeves and Dimitrios Halikias, "Race Gaps in SAT Scores Highlight Inequality and Hinder Upward Mobility," The Brookings Institute, February 1, 2017, https:// www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder- upward-mobility/.

9. Arthur Jensen, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (Westport: Praeger, 1998).

10. Ibid.

11. Richard Lynn, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (London: Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2011), 101.

12. James R. Flynn, Does Your Family Make You Smarter? Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

13. Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean (Oakton: New Century Foundation, 2005).

14. Sarah Broman, Paul Nichols, Peter Shaughnessy, Wallace Kennedy, Retardation in Young Children: A Developmental Study of Cognitive Deficit(Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1987).

15. Richard Weinberg, Sandra Scarr, Irwin Waldman, "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence," Intelligence, 16 (1992): 117-135.

16. J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing, 1995).

17. Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres, The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

18. Ezekiel Dixon-Roman, Howard Everson, and John Mcardle, "Race, Poverty and SAT Scores: Modeling the Influences of Family Income on Black and White High School Students’ SAT Performance," Teachers College Record (2013): 115.

19. See also Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, "Family Income Differences Explain Only a Small Part of the SAT Racial Scoring Gap," January 22, 2009, http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209p.html.

20. Jensen, The g Factor, op cit.

21. Walter Eels, "Mental Ability of the Native Races of Alaska," Journal of Applied Psychology,17 (1933): 417-438.

22. See Claudia M. Steele, "Thin Ice: Stereotype Threat and Black College Students," The Atlantic Monthly, August 1999,https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/08/ thin-ice-stereotype-threat-and-black-college-students/304663/.

23. Colleen Ganley, Leigh Mingle, Allison Ryan, et al., "An Examination of Stereotype Threat Effects on Girls’ Mathematics Performance," Developmental Psychology, 49-10 (2013): 1886-1897.

24. William Helmreich, The Things They Say Behind Your Back: Stereotypes and the Myths Behind Them (New York: Doubleday, 1982).

25. Lee Jussim, Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self- Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

26. Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: Basic Books, 1983).

27. Scott Kaufman, Colin DeYoung, Deidre Reis, et al., "General Intelligence Predicts Reasoning Ability for Evolutionarily Familiar Content," Intelligence, 39 (2011): 311-322.

28. Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations (Westport: Prager, 2002).

29. Edward Dutton, "Obituary: Tatu Vanhanen (1929-2015)," Mankind Quarterly, 56 (2015): 226-233.

30. Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, (London: Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2012).

31. Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (Whitefish, MT: Washington Summit Publishing, 2015 [2006]).

32. Lynn and Vanhanen, Intelligence, op cit., Chapter 1.

33. David Becker, View on IQ, https://viewoniq.org,.

34. Richard Lynn and David Becker, The Intelligence of Nations (London: Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2019).

35. Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence, op cit.

36. Davide Piffer, "Evidence for Recent Polygenic Selection on Educational Attainment Inferred from GWAS Hits," Preprints, November 6, 2016, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201611.0047/v1.

37. Davide Piffer, "Correlation Between PGS and Environmental Variables," RPubs, March 31, 2018, https://rpubs.com/Daxide/377423

38. Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence, op cit.

39. Jensen, The g Factor, op cit.

40. Katarzyna Bryc, Eric Durand, J. Michael MacPherson, et al., "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States," American Journal of Human Genetics, 96 (2015): 37-53.

41. Rickie Solinger, Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America (New York: New York University Press, 2005).

42. Jada Benn Torres, Menahem Doura, Shomarka Keita, and Rick Kittles, "Y Chromosome Lineages in Men of West African Descent," PLoS One, January25, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029687.

43. Daniel Ness and Stephen J. Farenga, Knowledge Under Construction: The Importance of Play in Developing Children’s Spatial and Geometric Thinking (Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), 23.

44. H. Reuning "Testing Bushmen in the Central Kalahari," in Human Abilities in Cultural Context, ed. S.H. Irvine and John Berry (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1988), 476.

45. Maureen Cox, Children’s Drawings of the Human Figure (Hove: Psychology Press, 2013), 70.

46. Helmut Reuning, "Testing Bushmen in the Central Kalahari," in Human Abilities in Cultural Context, ed. S.H. Irvine and John Berry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 476.

47. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981).

48. Stephen Jay Gould, "Morton’s Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity," Science, 200 (1978): 503-509.

49. Jason Lewis, David DeGusta, Marc Meyer, et al., "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias," PLoS Biology, June 7, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071.

50. See Nicholas Wade, "Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim," New York Times, June 13, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html.