>>11898882>You quoted one part of it, and it is completely fucking useless. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it's also a non-standard measure. No wonder it deviates from normal estimates of heritability, when it's not a normal measure of it.I posted the whole paper in good faith for people to draw conclusions, the modern criteria used to define heritability (which has been adopted in other papers, mind you) is described therein, and you haven't come up with a proper argument to discredit the definition.
>A literary review? Are you a comedian now? I don't see the cherrypicking you speak of. What papers were excluded that you think belong there?
>>so either there is an EXTREME selection going on>Yes. You don't know. You can't know. In 2009, the children of African immigrants in the UK had an average IQ of 94 (on national norms).
Nigerians performed slightly better than White Britons in the GSCEs, which correlates to about 0.7 with the general intelligence factor (g), and the average CAT scores of Africans in the UK are 92.0 (verbal reasoning), 94.1 (non-verbal reasoning) and 94.1 (quantitative reasoning), compared to 101.1, 101.3 and 100.2, respectively, for White Britons
An IQ of 92 is well above and beyond Lynn's IQ estimate of 67 points for Africans. If ALL Africans in the UK happenned to belong to the 15.8% smartest fraction of the population, that would still net you an average IQ of 82 points for them. Their actual scores go well above that.
Since the UK isn't conducting IQ tests to admit Africans, inevitably many average or below average Africans should have been able to immigrate, but that doesn't fit the results shown. Some very extreme form of selection would have to be going on, either selecting for the smartest 5%, which seems very unlikely, or environmental factors are more likely to account for that. This is common sense.
>Quite clearly it's the latter. Have a good night, and grow the fuck up.You too.
