If your research contradicts everyday experience (clearly aborigine can do more than empty bins) you're completely wrong.
While the IQ gap is pretty much confirmed and public knowledge, the question remains whether it's grounded in social reasons (discrimination etc.) exclusively or a mixture of social and biological reasons. Lynn is a rather controversial figure in psychology.
Living in Australia, so far I have not yet seen an Aboriginal person, well ... doing what everyone else would do. Sit in a restaurant, walk into a bank, sit in a lecture (or hold one). Every single one I've seen so far was sitting in a park with booze or strolling on the pavement with some friends and ... booze.
That's not meant to be discriminatory, that's just what I've observed. This said, as always in IQ there is a wide distribution and you'll find enough Aboriginal people with IQs >100 who are working as lecturers, civil servants etc.
Hmmmm - if he was racist surely he would have whites Britians/Europeans as the highest IQs not the chinese/japanese.
I can believe that this research did indeed find that in IQ tests aborigone tribesmen did come in quite low. But not necessarily because they lack intelligence. More to do with fact that they have no need of knowing about stuff in IQ tests, thier brains are not programmed to respond to maths and logic questions. They are wired to survival in a harsh enviroment.
Flip it round take your IQ test and make it about survival, where t find food, how to make fire, how not to freeze at night, how to hunt and forage and id bet that Europeans would be at the level of a cabbage wheras the Aborigines would come in very high scores
I would like to know how he got a large enough sample size of aborigines and sub saharn african do these IQ tests if an, as it would be difficult to do even in Europe. Therefore on this basis I say his results are inconclusive at best.
He might be right.
But 'iQ' was a measure invented to quantify inherent ability.
Then people found that you can do better at iQ tests by preparing or practicing. This means that iQ tests do not measure inherent ability. And therefore - what do they measure?
It's pretty conceivable that tribal people do worse in these tests because people who receive a western education are far more used to doing tests and are trained to develop the skills used in an iq test. Shapes and patterns come up in early school life, for example.
I think a better study would be to see how people of aborigine ethnicity who have been adopted, raised and educated as a non-aborigine Australian compare. But obviously that pool of people is going to be too small.
chinese and north koreans have higher average iq's than whites on average. these are extremely poor areas, many times down to subsistence levels. yet they still score very high on tests that white men have created. if i ever have kids they will be mixed race (i am white, wife is black from US). that doesn't change anything, people are still individuals. just because a scientific fact is inconvenient by modern western world standards it doesn't mean it should automatically be binned. african american iq is around 85, but my wife is way above that. individuals are individuals
I don't know much about this study, but I do know that IQs test for a very specific type of intelligence that is cohesive to the type of skills that were in demand for in the early 20th Century in the western world. Just because Aborigines don't have this specific type of intelligence doesn't make them mentally handicapped, it makes them different.
Just beacuse he's a scientist doesn't make him immune to being an idiot.