# From a purely genetic standpoint, how does it make sense that the average IQ of African Ams is 85? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041 "2013-10-23T17:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/381 "2013-11-05T20:40:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Some of them can, yes. I’m confused by your confusion…“supervision” and “work” are not mutually exclusive. Most people are supervised at work, as a matter of fact. Ummm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? I have found quotes indicating that most mentally retarded people can work. Do you dispute them or not? Here’s what you said before: > [@](#): > > I already told you what would happen: crops would fail, as the people assigned to plant and harvest them failed to do so. So it sounds like you are saying that mentally retarded people would fail to take part in agriculture and people who are not mentally retarded would be too busy taking care of the mentally retarded people to conduct agriculture. If the quotes I found are correct, then you are clearly wrong since many mentally retarded people could take part in planting and harvesting of crops, albeit with close supervision. So please answer my question: Do you dispute the quotes or not? It’s a simple yes or no question. > [@](#): > > Most people are not supervised at home…but the mentally disabled are. I’m seriously skeptical of your claim that most mentally disabled people are supervised at home. Please show me proof. > [@](#): > > Some can, yes. Does that mean yes or no? Simple question. > [@](#): > > It’s not at all off-topic. The mere existence of problems is not evidence of very low IQs, _unless they are the sort of problems that a very low average IQ would cause._ Which they are – you’ve already admitted that very low average IQ would result in poor agriculture and poor commerce. And indeed, agriculture and commerce seem to be pretty poor in sub-Saharan Africa. > [@](#): > > Low IQ doesn’t explain corruption, or tribalism, or the effects of colonialism, or the effects of socialism. We can speculate on what a low-IQ society would look like. I’ve done just that, only to have you ignore it, in favor of a poor agriculture/commerce/military = low IQ argument, Please show me where I made such an argument. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such argument and apologize. (My actual argument is that simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa results in observation of such things as poor commerce and poor agriculture. Which means that one cannot rule out the possibility of very low average IQ on the basis of simple observation.) > [@](#): > > Conditions other than low IQ can cause poor agriculture, commerce, and military performance. I have never disputed this – it’s not the issue. > [@](#): > > Are you sure **your** assessments are objective? Absolutely. And my observations are also consistent with objective tests. > [@](#): > > Is this finding replicated by special-education departments at public schools, I wonder? I don’t know. If you are skeptical of the cites I have provided and calculation I have done, you are free to look up your own. > [@](#): > > More than half, I suppose. More than half of Americans have IQs between 85 and 115, agreed? > [@](#): > > What’s your answer to that question? I have no answer . . . I’m not the one who is making an argument which hinges on the word “typical.” > [@](#): > > It’s possible, but it’s much less persuasive than other explanations. Again, mental disability has observable characteristics of its own. And again you are missing the point. Simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa yields observations which are consistent with very low average IQ. Therefore simple observation is insufficient to reject the claim that there is very low average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa. > [@](#): > > Not to a man, but certainly they’d perish in great numbers. Roughly what percentage? > [@](#): > > Alright, now what would characterize a society with an average IQ around 100, which was afflicted, in succession, with tribalism, colonialism, and socialism? Because we’ve seen that pattern in non-African nations, and they ended up with the problems you describe (Indochina, for instance). How can we tell what role, if any, a very low average IQ played? The easiest way is to give objective tests. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/382 "2013-11-05T21:06:14Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Your thought experiment works because you begin with a defined genetic population (the Pima) Putting aside CP’s response (which is basically correct), would you mind providing me with a genetic definition of the Pima? I’m skeptical that one exists. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/383 "2013-11-05T21:22:59Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > African kids in the States don’t have a test score gap. If you were familiar with the literature, then you’d know this. Putting aside the rest of your post for the moment, I did some searches and could not find this literature. Would you happen to have a link and cite? TIA. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/384 "2013-11-05T21:50:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ummm, does that mean “yes” or “no”? > > I have found quotes indicating that most mentally retarded people can work. Do you dispute them or not? > > Here’s what you said before: > > So it sounds like you are saying that mentally retarded people would fail to take part in agriculture and people who are not mentally retarded would be too busy taking care of the mentally retarded people to conduct agriculture. > > If the quotes I found are correct, then you are clearly wrong since many mentally retarded people could take part in planting and harvesting of crops, albeit with close supervision. > > So please answer my question: Do you dispute the quotes or not? It’s a simple yes or no question. No, I don’t dispute my own cites. About that close supervision, which we seem to agree is necessary…who, exactly, is performing it? Africa isn’t, to my knowledge, dominated by massive corporate-owned farms like the U.S., but rather small family plots. In [Rwanda](http://www.rema.gov.rw/soe/chap3.php), for instance: > [@](#): > > Generally landholdings are very small with more than 60 per cent of households cultivating less than 0.7 ha, 50 per cent cultivating less than 0.5 ha, and more than 25 per cent cultivating less than 0.2 ha (ROR 2008). Does each plot _happen_ to have a non-disabled person in charge of it, or what? Who is organizing all this? [QUOTE=brazil84] I’m seriously skeptical of your claim that most mentally disabled people are supervised at home. Please show me proof. [/quote] [Here’s some evidence:](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15766626) > [@](#): > > The present study investigated a group of adults with either specific learning disabilities or mild mental retardation who had graduated or exited an inclusionary high school which emphasized vocational technology training and independent living skills. The results indicated higher than the national average for employment and rate of pay as well as stronger than expected indicators of independent living in terms of mobility. **The largest group of individuals, however, were still residing with their parents**. Bolding mine. And that leaves out those who are more than mildly retarded, and are not capable of living independently. > [@brazil84](#): > > Does that mean yes or no? Simple question. Yes, some of them can become fairly self sufficient. Just what the cite says. > [@brazil84](#): > > Which they are – you’ve already admitted that very low average IQ would result in poor agriculture and poor commerce. And indeed, agriculture and commerce seem to be pretty poor in sub-Saharan Africa. Either you’re being obtuse, or I’m not getting my point across. Yes, very low average IQ would result in poor agricultural and commercial performance, but it would be poor performance with specific characteristics. For example, returning again to the small family plots that make up Rwandan agriculture. If the average Rwandan was incapable of working his farm without the close supervision of someone with a higher IQ, it stands to reason that many, many farm plots would have to do without this supervision. There’s no organization assigning supervisors, and with such a low average IQ, there’d be many, many families without a high-IQ son to act as supervisor. Therefore, you’d see plots becoming less productive and even ceasing to be farm plots altogether, as they were mismanaged, neglected, overgrown, etc. **But that’s not happening** , production is steadily increasing every year. Commerce would be the same way: once a business fell into the hands of someone with an IQ under 70, it would cease to be productive, in a sort of dystopian spiral. Here’s [Rwanda’](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/rwanda/gdp-growth) GDP growth. It’s positive. GINI coefficient data would also be useful here, as evidence for or against the sort of extreme stratification that would result from only half (at best) the population being physically capable of the skills needed to become well-off (not slam-dunk evidence, though, because other factors can cause inequality). Sadly, the data on African nations is largely non-existent. > [@brazil84](#): > > Please show me where I made such an argument. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such argument and apologize. That’s pretty rich coming from you, but “=” meant “is evidence of”, which you’ve plainly stated: > [@Human Action](#): > > No, that’s not it. It’s not that there’d be no agriculture, just very poor agriculture, and very poor commerce, and a very poor military, and so forth. > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > I basically agree with this, subject to the caveat that such a place might be raised somewhat by foreign efforts, for example foreign aid, or foreigners getting involved in commerce, and so on. Indeed, generally speaking it seems that black African nations do have poor agriculture and poor commerce. I’m not a military expert, but I would guess their militaries are pretty lousy by Western standards too. That should have been apparent, since the line you quoted was in reference to my efforts to point to potential evidence for and characteristics of a society with a low average IQ, and you failing to address it. Which you’ve again done, in fact. > [@brazil84](#): > > (My actual argument is that simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa results in observation of such things as poor commerce and poor agriculture. Which means that one cannot rule out the possibility of very low average IQ on the basis of simple observation.) Well, you could observe other things, such as the one’s I’ve noted, or observe the _ways_ in which the commerce and agriculture were dysfunctional. Why won’t you respond to these arguments? > [@brazil84](#): > > I have never disputed this – it’s not the issue. It is, in that observation must extend to causes, and not just effects. And the causes can be observed. > [@brazil84](#): > > Absolutely. And my observations are also consistent with objective tests. I don’t want any hijacks, so I’ll leave that one alone. > [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t know. If you are skeptical of the cites I have provided and calculation I have done, you are free to look up your own. That too, I shouldn’t have brought that up, as it’s a hijack. Mea culpa. > [@brazil84](#): > > More than half of Americans have IQs between 85 and 115, agreed? Agreed. > [@brazil84](#): > > I have no answer . . . I’m not the one who is making an argument which hinges on the word “typical.” Am I? My argument was that observation would betray the fact that Africans have average IQs above 70. That would make them typical humans, yes, but my argument in no way hinges on the word “typical”, let alone the sort of linguistic wringing-out you’re engaged in. > [@brazil84](#): > > And again you are missing the point. Simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa yields observations which are consistent with very low average IQ. Therefore simple observation is insufficient to reject the claim that there is very low average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa. Again, only if the observation was incredibly shallow and limited. > [@brazil84](#): > > Roughly what percentage? 1-50%, give or take. > [@brazil84](#): > > The easiest way is to give objective tests. What can be **observed** that would distinguish between a society that was dysfunctional because of ideology, and one that was dysfunctional due to widespread mental retardation? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/385 "2013-11-05T23:22:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > No, I don’t dispute my own cites. That’s not an answer to my question. I asked you about quotes which I provided. You are evading my simple, reasonable question designed to elicit your position. > [@](#): > > About that close supervision, which we seem to agree is necessary…who, exactly, is performing it? Other people. Besides which, that’s not what you said before. Before, you claimed that mentally retarded people simply would not perform their assigned work. You are weaseling. > [@](#): > > Does each plot _happen_ to have a non-disabled person in charge of it, or what? I would imagine that some do and some don’t. In any case, the people probably do a lousy job. Which may be part of the reason for Africa’s relatively low agricultural outfit. > [@](#): > > Bolding mine. Residing with one’s parents does not necessarily entail supervision. And “largest group” does not necessarily mean most. > [@](#): > > Yes, some of them can become fairly self sufficient. Just what the cite says. No, that’s not what the cite says. It says “they can become fairly self-sufficient” without the phrase “some of them.” You are misrepresenting your own cite. > [@](#): > > “=” meant “is evidence of” That’s not a reasonable interpretation of “=.” Evidence is not proof. Anyway, I’m not going to delve into your post any further. You are evading reasonable questions designed to elicit your position; you are misrepresenting your own cites; you are weaseling; and you are basically strawmanning me to boot. This exchange is concluded. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/386 "2013-11-06T01:45:30Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s not an answer to my question. I asked you about quotes which I provided. You are evading my simple, reasonable question designed to elicit your position. You asked a yes-or-or question. _The first word of my reply was “no”._ That’s not evading a question. This is the debate equivalent of the Four Corners, **brazil**. > [@brazil84](#): > > Other people. Who? Family members? Other members of the community? UN workers? This goes to that social-structure argument that you completely ignored. > [@brazil84](#): > > Besides which, that’s not what you said before. Before, you claimed that mentally retarded people simply would not perform their assigned work. You are weaseling. I said "crops would fail, as the people assigned to plant and harvest them failed to do so. " I allowed that under close supervision, as opposed to mere assignment or their own initiative, the mildly retarded could do it, but that brings up all the issues of close supervision. That ain’t weaseling. > [@brazil84](#): > > I would imagine that some do and some don’t. In any case, the people probably do a lousy job. Which may be part of the reason for Africa’s relatively low agricultural outfit. Is that the reason? Upon visiting Africa, would one observe a large number of basically unproductive farms, where the farmer doesn’t have the IQ to handle it? Again, these are observable characteristics. Simple observation means much more than the literacy rate, total agricultural output, and total commerce. > [@brazil84](#): > > Residing with one’s parents does not necessarily entail supervision. And “largest group” does not necessarily mean most. Or, it does entail supervision, and the largest might be a majority. Then there’s the non-mildly retarded. I’m not overly worried about it, it’s not even a claim I made. I said that the mentally disabled are supervised at home, not that it was to a man or even a majority, though it likely is. > [@brazil84](#): > > No, that’s not what the cite says. It says “they can become fairly self-sufficient” without the phrase “some of them.” > > You are misrepresenting your own cite. [Here ya go:](http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moderate+mental+retardation) > [@](#): > > Individuals with mild to moderate mental retardation are frequently able to achieve some self-sufficiency and to lead happy and fulfilling lives. It’s later in the same cite, under “Prognosis”. > [@brazil84](#): > > That’s not a reasonable interpretation of “=.” Evidence is not proof. Anyway, I’m not going to delve into your post any further. > > You are evading reasonable questions designed to elicit your position; you are misrepresenting your own cites; you are weaseling; and you are basically strawmanning me to boot. > > This exchange is concluded. Wow, that is just shameful. You questioned my phrase, I clarified that I meant exactly what you wrote. I answered every question; the cite contains exactly what I said it did; I didn’t weasel, the difference from one phrase to the next was clear, and both were supported by the cite. I didn’t strawman you, despite two hysterical accusations. I feel rather confident that the reason you’re not going to delve any further is because you’ve got no counter-argument. Given multiple opportunities to respond to my arguments, rather than minutia or nonsensical accusations, you rather pointedly did not. You’ve got nothin’. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041/387 "2013-11-06T01:54:32Z")
You know what? To hell with this. You all have been going back and forth and not truly getting anywhere for days. And now we’ve got dueling posters claiming little is going to be accomplished. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-a-purely-genetic-standpoint-how-does-it-make-sense-that-the-average-iq-of-african-ams-is-85/672041.md?page=19)