05-12-2008, 08:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2008, 08:02 AM by G.Subramaniam.)
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003111.html
remember a report in the New York times a few months back commenting on Frances "dynamic" community of about 500,000 Chinese.
As to IQ differences between Arabs and European Caucasoids, much of it must be environmental (e.g. due to Islam), since Indians, non-European Caucasoids, in the UK converge with indigenous Britons after about 4 years. Since the cohort cited by Jensen had the mean IQ of India (like 15 points below Britain) upon arriving in the country, it could not have been due to selective migration. Also, the Maronite Lebanese in France (and elsewhere) outperform European Caucasoids. The Armenians (of which France also has many) are a small self-selected group like the Ashkanazi Jews or Parsees, so it's hard to compare them.
Interestingly, Bangladeshi and Pakastani immigrants to the UK due not converge with the indigenous Britons.
Posted by: Nigel on November 12, 2005 08:21 PM
Nigel,
But why would the environment in India hold people back from their potential more than the environment in Africa?
I'm suspicious of simple interpretations of data about south Asian immigrant groups for a basic reason: caste. India has large numbers of in-breeding groups. So it is hard to generalize about its immigrants.
What percentage of the Indian immigrants in Britain are Brahmin versus Tamil versus assorted other groups?
Posted by: Randall Parker on November 13, 2005 07:01 PM
Randall, the Indians in the UK tend to be overwhelmingly North Indian middle-castes. There are relatively
few Brahmins and low-caste Indians that have immigrated. There's a larger proportion of Brahmins in the
U.S., but middle-castes also predominate here.
Posted by: Tim on November 13, 2005 10:16 PM
remember a report in the New York times a few months back commenting on Frances "dynamic" community of about 500,000 Chinese.
As to IQ differences between Arabs and European Caucasoids, much of it must be environmental (e.g. due to Islam), since Indians, non-European Caucasoids, in the UK converge with indigenous Britons after about 4 years. Since the cohort cited by Jensen had the mean IQ of India (like 15 points below Britain) upon arriving in the country, it could not have been due to selective migration. Also, the Maronite Lebanese in France (and elsewhere) outperform European Caucasoids. The Armenians (of which France also has many) are a small self-selected group like the Ashkanazi Jews or Parsees, so it's hard to compare them.
Interestingly, Bangladeshi and Pakastani immigrants to the UK due not converge with the indigenous Britons.
Posted by: Nigel on November 12, 2005 08:21 PM
Nigel,
But why would the environment in India hold people back from their potential more than the environment in Africa?
I'm suspicious of simple interpretations of data about south Asian immigrant groups for a basic reason: caste. India has large numbers of in-breeding groups. So it is hard to generalize about its immigrants.
What percentage of the Indian immigrants in Britain are Brahmin versus Tamil versus assorted other groups?
Posted by: Randall Parker on November 13, 2005 07:01 PM
Randall, the Indians in the UK tend to be overwhelmingly North Indian middle-castes. There are relatively
few Brahmins and low-caste Indians that have immigrated. There's a larger proportion of Brahmins in the
U.S., but middle-castes also predominate here.
Posted by: Tim on November 13, 2005 10:16 PM