The Collinses have recently released two videos arguing that both Jews and Asians are not superior in intelligence to Whites (the implicit reference population).
The arguments for both cases are different, so I will divide this post into three different sections:
Jewish IQ
Asian IQ
Polygenic scores
With no further ado:
Jewish IQ: real, genetic, average of 107-113
Their argument goes more or less like this:
The largest, highest quality, and representative study (which uses the Project Talent) finds that Jews score disproportionately well on verbal tests and badly on spatial tests.
Richard Lynn selectively presented data (???) which estimates differences in crystallized ability (e.g. verbal, mathematical) and not nonverbal ability between Jews and Whites.
The meta-analysis of Jewish IQ cannot be trusted because it involves non-representative studies or incomplete measurements of intelligence
So, first, their description of Backman 1972 is accurate: Jews do well on VKN (verbal/general information), and MAT (math), but not so well on VIS (visual ability) and MEM (memory).
The existence of differences in group factors of intelligence does not imply no difference in general ability. In fact, the differences in group factors could be due to genetics, as group factors of intelligence are heritable as well.
Second, there are studies that have used that dataset and calculated an advantage in general ability:
Dunkel, C. S., Reeve, C. L., Woodley of Menie, M. A., & van der Linden, D. (2015). A comparative study of the general factor of personality in Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 63–67. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.014
2.4.3. Intelligence A primary objective of the PT ability battery was to survey a wide variety of human abilities (Flanagan et al., 1962, p. 57). A general cognitive ability factor has been shown to underlie the variance among the tests of the PT battery (Carroll, 1993; Reeve, 2004). The PT ability battery is comprised of 11 tests that assess narrow abilities, including fluid intelligence (Abstract Reasoning, Arithmetic Reasoning, Mechanical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, 2D Rotation, 3D Rotation, and Table Reading) and crystallized intelligence (Vocabulary, Biological Sciences Knowledge, Social Sciences Knowledge, and Literature Knowledge). We followed recommendations of Jensen and Weng (1994) and Reeve and Blacksmith (2009) to obtain a viable g-score. The first unrotated principal component based on the 11 tests was extracted. This component accounted for 48.72% of the observed score variance in the operational sample. Scores on this component are reported on a standard IQ metric with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 10. To check the accuracy of this method, we also computed g-loadings using Principal Axis factoring. In the current data, the vector of g-loadings derived using PCA correlated r = .996 with g-loadings derived using PAF.
Besides that study, I also have access to this data, and have found that Jews score about 8.5 points higher than the average White gentile, and they score higher on tests that have higher g-loadings (aka better measurements of intelligence):
As expected, they do the best on tests of knowledge or mathematical/verbal ability, and the worst on rural knowledge (e.g. farming knowledge, hunting knowledge) or spatial ability (e.g. three dimensional reasoning, mechanical reasoning). But this does imply that there is an advantage in general ability.
Cremieux has also found a slightly larger difference (13 points) between Jewish Whites and non-Jewish Whites using a latent model and a different method of identifying Jews.
As for Lynn’s meta-analysis, many of the studies were estimates of the difference in crystallized ability, but this is not unusual. They’re administered more often, which makes them more likely to show up in meta-analyses.
Contrast this to Murray’s analysis of Black/Hispanic/White differences:
North East Asian IQ: real, genetic, average of 103-105
The first argument I hear from the Collinses is that Asian socioeconomic achievement over Whites is not due to intelligence. This is not correct: the answer is it partially explains it, but it’s honestly not something I’m invested in proving. I’ll just focus on the main question.
The next thing they brought up in the video is that Asians try harder in academics than Whites. This is true (and have written about this before), but it’s not relevant to whether they are more intelligent or not. It will cause the differences in academic ability between races to be biased measurements of intelligence, and tests of IQ as well, since many IQ subtests (e.g. arithmetic, reading) are also measurements of academic ability.
I could argue that Asian-Americans have higher measured IQs than Whites (which is true), but it would not be an apt rebuttal as it could be dismissed as academic effort. So allow me to go to a different datasource: national IQs.
National IQs (the accurate ones, at least) tend to come from international scholastic test scores, which North East Asians score higher than Europeans in (with the exception of North Korea, which had their IQ estimated based on refugees).
This could be argued to be a function of higher levels of academic effort in Asia, but fortunately Becker has sorted his national IQs into two different categories: psychometric tests, which are mostly matrices tests, and scholastic ones.
On these psychometric tests, North East Asians still score higher on the nonverbal tests than British Whites (100):
Polygenic scores
Polygenic scores rely on genome-wide association studies that are done by correlating individual SNPs (small locations in the genome) with a certain trait (e.g. intelligence). These GWAS are then used to calculate people’s genetic predisposition to traits by adding up the predicted effects of all of their genetic variants.
These are the group differences in scores for educational attainment:
For cognitive ability:
Case closed.
Tangential to this post, racial dilution is making this sort of thing harder and harder to measure and particularly who it's applied to. I'm not sure the exact number but I think it was something like 2% of American Ashkenazim outmarried 100 years ago compared to around 50% today. So the Ashkenazim of today, are they the same Ashkenazim of 100 years ago? As a genetic group, one would have to say no. Today they have far greater diversity within the group that is given that label.
Not to mention how laughably diversified "white" already is. That label at times gets indiscriminately applied to Argentines, Danes, Anglos, Russians, Poles, Italians, etc, as long as they live in the United States. Who exactly will these labels even be referring to in 50 years and how much will the group members have in common?
Returning to the present day, of what use are these statistics really? Handy heuristics I suppose? But even then there's somewhat broad differentiation at the individual level, even amongst siblings. Though it's uncommon, it still necessitates evaluating individuals on a case by case not race by race basis.
polygenic scores for IQ being higher for jews / asians isn't strong evidence that higher jewish / asian IQ is genetic. those polygenic scores are developed by fitting a model to predict IQ from genetic data. but measured IQ is subject to all the biases you already mentioned, and obviously ethnicity is encoded in dna -- so information about ethnicity contaminates the predictor. it's been known for years developing proxies for ethnicity is part of the way PSs get signal from genetic data
honestly before reading this, without looking much into the matter, i had given some credence to the idea that asians are smarter than whites. but if this is the best argument you can come up with in favor of that idea, i'm ready to abandon it
for jews, sure, i'm willing to believe higher IQ is partly genetic