Ashkenazi IQ figures are underestimates

Some thoughts on g

Never trust a Nazi, they’ll only let you down. You might have been promised a strong bulwark against the Bolshevik menace, but what you actually get is Hitler renaming the anti-Comintern pact so the USSR could join. You were expecting robust support for White supremacy, but you have to suck it up while 10s of millions of Europeans are slaughtered and Goebbels busies himself inciting 80 IQ unga bungas to rise up against their rightful masters. You thought that, at the very least, Nazism would be a venue for scientific racism and racial hierarchy, but then they go and ban IQ tests because they are butthurt about Jews doing too well on them.

Some things don’t change, and Nazis are still butthurt about Jews doing too well on IQ tests. Indeed, deboonking high Ashkenazi IQ is one of those Rightoid red-pill rites of passage on the path to the ultimate boss of denying that Julius Caesar existed. To avoid any hint of suspicion that I am shielding you, dear reader, from highly persuasive arguments that EXPOSE the deep core of Judeosupremacy behind the discipline of psychometrics, here is rotund affirmative-action polytechnic lecturer, Academic Agent with probably the best example of the genre.¹

It’s hard to remember now, but under the enormous mounds of just extraordinarily moronic nonsense that characterizes the Dissident Right there once was a solid core consisting of nothing more abstruse than pointing at a century of accumulated data from IQ testing and Federal crime statistics. 13/52 baby, or, as we have to update it following the bold advances of the BLM era, 13/58 and counting. Rightoids, though, are so addicted to their imbecility spirals that they are not content with merely smothering whatever truth once existed in their movement under piles and piles of cognitive sewage, they must directly attack even the residual truths themselves. Hence galaxy-brain Mark Collet’s conclusion that Jews are covering up the reality that Islamic immigration to Britain is actually a good thing and hence herculean efforts to explain why the IQ tests are rigged to make dindu crackers look bad.

But you don’t get to do that. Either IQ tests are fake or they are not. They aren’t real when showing a Black-White gap and fake when showing a White-Ashkenazi one. The pathetic Rightoid here fails even to properly represent the true spirit of Nazism, which magnificent task is left to the normie liberal who has read his Alfred Rosenberg and can smoothly explain that intelligence is too holistic a concept to be measured by a test, and no-one knows what intelligence is really and you must be pretty intelligent to live in the wilderness fighting lions and something, something, the tests are biased, why do you even care about this anyway … are you weird? It is, of course, disturbing to note that in 2024, while Tucker Carlson merely gingerly dips his toe, real important academics are spreading literal pure Nazism. Some brave soul should punch a Nazi on behalf of all of us.

Enough, though, with batting around easy targets. The point of debunking lolcow revisionism is to do revisionism properly. We shall now do just that and see how the figures given for Ashkenazi IQ are, in reality, too low.

Legit based IQ Revisionism

First, we must define our hypothesis. There are various estimates for mean Ashkenazi IQ, ranging from 106 to 120, so which of these are underestimates? The answer is all of them. By that I don’t mean that the actual figure is higher than 120 (I reckon 113 is reasonable enough), but that all the figures are underestimates relative to the data they are based on.

Let’s kick off with something that everyone not crazy and ignorant agrees upon: Ashkis score highly on verbal and mathematical reasoning tests, less highly on memory, and not highly at all on spatial reasoning. The estimates of general intelligence, g, are created by plugging in those figures to give a weighted average somewhere in the middle. My argument is that this g is not the correct number, and the correct number is obtained, instead, by looking at the verbal and mathematical reasoning scores. To understand why this is plainly correct, we need to take a little detour into intelligence research.

What is g?

Intelligence research kicked off with the finding that performance on tests in widely divergent academic subjects were correlated with each other. This conforms with common sense, which is why words like ‘clever’ and ‘intelligent’ were developed in the first place, but it’s always good to some data to back things up. Once this basic fact was established, it became possible to use factor analysis to identify a common variable that predicts performance on the different tasks. This common factor, g, is a mathematical construct, not a thing you can directly measure, but then so is π, and Nassim Taleb doesn’t deny that’s real (yet?). g has turned out to be easily the most real thing psychology has discovered, with a level of explanatory power far beyond anything the rest of the discipline has to offer.

Now, over time, it has become clear that some measured skills are more correlated with g than other ones. As it happens, spatial ability has a correlation of around 0.8, more than either verbal or mathematical ability. Spatial ability is also much more independent of educational and cultural differences, allowing researchers to come up with tests that are insulated from critiques along the lines of ‘but Jamaal doesn’t know what a beaver is because he lives in the projects’. Everyone agrees that if we could remove spatial ability from the tests, then Ashkenazim would do better, but we can’t, so we will have to be content with a lower level of innate racial superiority.

Well, no, actually, we don’t because there’s something called Spearman's law of diminishing returns. I’ll defer here to Wikipedia:

A number of researchers have suggested that the proportion of variation accounted for by g may not be uniform across all subgroups within a population. Spearman's law of diminishing returns (SLODR), also termed the cognitive ability differentiation hypothesis, predicts that the positive correlations among different cognitive abilities are weaker among more intelligent subgroups of individuals. More specifically, SLODR predicts that the g factor will account for a smaller proportion of individual differences in cognitive tests scores at higher scores on the g factor.

SLODR was originally proposed in 1927 by Charles Spearman, who reported that the average correlation between 12 cognitive ability tests was .466 in 78 normal children, and .782 in 22 "defective" children. Detterman and Daniel rediscovered this phenomenon in 1989. They reported that for subtests of both the WAIS and the WISC, subtest intercorrelations decreased monotonically with ability group, ranging from approximately an average intercorrelation of .7 among individuals with IQs less than 78 to .4 among individuals with IQs greater than 122

…

A recent meta-analytic study by Blum and Holling also provided support for the differentiation hypothesis. As opposed to most research on the topic, this work made it possible to study ability and age variables as continuous predictors of the g saturation, and not just to compare lower- vs. higher-skilled or younger vs. older groups of testees. Results demonstrate that the mean correlation and g loadings of cognitive ability tests decrease with increasing ability, yet increase with respondent age. SLODR, as described by Charles Spearman, could be confirmed by a g-saturation decrease as a function of IQ as well as a g-saturation increase from middle age to senescence. Specifically speaking, for samples with a mean intelligence that is two standard deviations (i.e., 30 IQ-points) higher, the mean correlation to be expected is decreased by approximately .15 points. The question remains whether a difference of this magnitude could result in a greater apparent factorial complexity when cognitive data are factored for the higher-ability sample, as opposed to the lower-ability sample. It seems likely that greater factor dimensionality should tend to be observed for the case of higher ability, but the magnitude of this effect (i.e., how much more likely and how many more factors) remains uncertain.

In other words, the higher your intelligence, the less correlated is your performance on different mental tasks, and, necessarily, the less meaningful g is as a measure of your intelligence. We might compare g to RAM. If your computer is from 2000 and has 16 MB then it probably takes ages to do anything, i.e. it isn’t very smart. Upping this to 32MB then 64MB will make it run faster and more smoothly across different applications. At a certain point, however, further increases in raw processing power cease to make much of a difference, and what makes your computer meaningfully more or less intelligent is the software you have installed. Which is smarter, a 600MB RAM computer with Chat GPT, or a 1200MB computer without it?

What this means is that the more performance in different, no longer so correlated, cognitive tasks diverges, the more that the decision to continue using g as a proxy for intelligence becomes less something imposed upon you by the most reasonable interpretation of the data, and more a conscious choice. There are decent reasons for making this choice, not least having a consistent variable to use across the field, but there are good reasons not to make it and the most obvious one is that spatial ability is not intelligence.

You may here accuse me of using my Ashkenazi pilpul to bamboozle you into denying good Anglo Saxon science. Well, maybe you would prefer the dictionary:

the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason

That’s Cambridge. Here’s Mariam Webster:

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations

And finally, the true authority, Dictionary.com:

the capacity, especially of a particular person or animal, for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; relative aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, meanings, etc.

You can do a Google search as well as me, so feel free to add more definitions. Notice that what you don’t find is ‘rotating shapes in your head’. Now, for the smart gentiles out there, I am not trying to knock your ability to rotate shapes in your head. Rotating shapes in your head is great, I have nothing but respect for it, but it’s not intelligence. It’s a neat skill you can amuse yourself with while the Jews are subverting your society, but, again, not intelligence. What is intelligence? Well, at a certain level of simplification, it’s verbal and mathematical reasoning ability.

The anti-Ashkenazi

To make this clear, let us imagine the true Aryan specimen who has fully inverted the cognitive profile of the subhuman enemy of mankind. Thus, he knocks it out of the park on spatial reasoning, does decently on memory, and is somewhat below average on verbal and mathematical reasoning. According to standard calculations of g, let’s say he comes out of with an IQ of 115, but what does this actually mean? He doesn’t do as well at school as the other kids with a 115 IQ, he doesn’t have the same expected outcomes at work, he isn’t interesting to talk to, and no-one ever referred to him as clever. Sure, if you have a shape you need rotated then he’s gangbusters, but that’s something else.

I therefore conclude that the simple and obvious thing to do when calculating Ashkenazi IQ is to simply ignore spatial ability as a form of data that, while very useful elsewhere, isn’t very useful here. There is, for example, presently a lot of discussion about how far Ashkenazi IQ can explain overrepresentation in prestigious fields like Nobel prize winners, hedge fund managers, and up-and-coming substackers periodically boosted by Richard Hanania. Isn’t it screamingly obvious that spatial ‘reasoning’ ability is literally completely irrelevant to that? I don’t know how much gap still remains when you recalculate the expected figures using the relevant IQ numbers, but the very fact that it makes that gap smaller is, on its own, decent reason to do it.

Finally, we might close with some observations about the development of high Ashkenazi IQ. We know that this didn’t even start developing in all likelihood until 1,000 years ago, and probably wasn’t even all that advanced until 500 years ago. Such a quick evolutionary change required some pretty down and dirty engineering, which is why we have all these weird genetic diseases of the brain. It seems likely that instead of, or, at the very least, in addition to, working on the raw processing power of the brain (i.e g), this entailed alterations to more software analogous part of the brain, boosting mathematical and verbal ability while leaving spatial ability relatively untouched. In other words, it boosted what is properly called intelligence more than it boosted the basic cognitive function that underlies intelligence. Or, to put it a third way, you can’t compete. Just give up now and play with your Rubik’s cube, but, first, don’t forget to

1. Really, I only linked to it because I came up with ‘rotund affirmative-action polytechnic lecturer’ while planning out a different article in the shower that I won’t get to write for months, and I thought it was too good to wait. It’s 💩. ‘Before all other things, I study power and politics. Keen awareness of elite theory keeps one alert of Schmittian exceptions’. Yeah, GFY.