Race and IQ: Mixed Populations

Originally Published on The Alternative Hypothesis

One argument for heredetarianism (the view that genes are an important cause of racial IQ differences) is that, around the world, mixed-race populations have IQs, or other standardized test scores, that are intermediate between the two races they are a mixture of.

Of course it’s messy, and we’re relying on subjective classification, but subjective classification is usually the same as best-fit genetic cluster anyway, and of course some populations of blacks could be genetically more intelligent than other populations of blacks, just as some populations of whites can be more intelligent than other populations of whites, and even some populations of blacks can be more intelligent than some populations of whites.

That’s why we look at all the data we can get. If you know of a study not here, leave a comment and I will try to add it as soon as I can.

Minnesota Transracial (MTAS) 1992:

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was a study done by Sandra Scarr which tracked white, black mulatto and an “Asian/Indian” sample of adoptees to white families. The “Asian / Indian” sample is not meaningful since we don’t know how many of each are in that sample. These were the scores:

Group IQ age 7 IQ age 17 Number
Biological White 116.7 109.4 143
Adopted White 111.5 105.6 25
Adopted Mulatto 109 98.5 29
Adopted Black 96.8 89.4 101
Adopted Asian/Indian 99.9 96.2 21

Scarr noted that there was no difference in scores between mulattoes that looked and considered themselves “black” and those that looked lighter. Unfortunately she didn’t give the numbers for that.

Scarr initially tried to spin her data to support an environmental hypothesis, but eventually said that the data could be used to support either side:

The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions”

The study obviously supports the heredetarian position exclusively, or at least hits hard against home environment as an explanation. I have never seen anyone cite MTAS to support an environmentalist case, it is always treated by both sides as a piece of heredetarian evidence to either be touted or minimized.

Scarr has since quit her psychology research and is now a coffee-grower in Hawaii.

Owen 1992:

In 1992 K. Owen went to South Africa and tested 1,056 Whites, 1,063 Indians, 778 Coloreds and 1,093 Blacks aged 15 using Standard Progressive Matrices. The results were:

White score Indian score Colored score Black score
Set A 11.46 10.91 10.63 9.6
Set B 10.56 9.94 8.78 6.25
Set C 8.87 8.31 7.16 5.28
Set D 9.04 8.5 7.37 4.93
Set E 5.34 4.33 2.75 1.59
Total 45.27 41.99 36.39 27.65
IQ conversion 100 92.23 78.99 58.31

This scoring is particularly harsh because I’m simply setting the white score to 100, and using the white standard deviation – which is 6.34, to convert each group’s raw scores to IQ. If you used the standard deviations and the mean for for the whole population, everyone would have much higher scores.

Owen shows the ubiquitous result of mulattoes scoring intermediate between blacks and whites. But what is more illustrative is the breakdown of the scores by question:

Larger image here

In each set the questions get harder, and you can see that in the early questions there is almost no racial difference at all. But the more difficult the questions, the more racial disparity there is.

And this is why the magnitude of the gap being “15 points” is not always meaningful. Because if you want to spike the test and get blacks scoring the same as whites, just make the test easy. If every question was as easy as the first 6 questions of set A, the black-white gap would be negligible.

If you want to increase the racial gap, make the test hard – but not so hard that everyone is guessing, as Progressive Matrices are multiple choice. Questions like number 52 to 56 would maximize the racial gap if that’s what you wanted to do. Past that and everyone is just guessing and the racial gap goes away.

Codwell 1947:

I could not track down the original paper for this, only the scores reported by Lynn.

Race IQ Number
White 100
Mulatto 91 284
Blacks 87 176

Rowe 2002:

David Rowe in 2002 analyzed Wave 1 the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health and looked at, among other things, the PVT scores for blacks, mixed and white students. The data was a follows:

Race Verbal IQ Number
Black 93.6 4,271
Mixed 102.5 116
White 105 10,315

Very high score for the mixed, but still fits the “intermediate race, intermediate IQ” generality.


Fernandez 2001:

In 2001 Maria Fernandez looked at the IQs of 10-year olds in Brazil of “Asians”, Whites, Browns (mestizos) and blacks.

Race Raw Score IQ Number
“Asian” 38.5 104.3 186
White 35.5 100 735
Brown 25.2 85.1 718
Black 15.8 71.6 223

These scores take Fernandez’s raw scores, sets the white score to 100 and uses the white standard deviation to give the scores for the other groups.

Claassen 1990:

Classenn looked at 1,561 South African school kids aged 11 to 14. These were their scores by subtest on the “General Scholastic Aptitude Test”:

Race / Language White / English White / Afrikaans Colored / English Colored / Afrikaans
Number 405 341 353 462
Word Analogies 18.55 14.39 14.37 11.86
Word Pairs 15.56 15.36 12.08 10.75
Verbal Reasoning 17.38 16.53 14.81 11.14
Number Problems 16.22 15.23 14.36 10.74
Number Series 18.22 17.61 16.5 13.58
Figure Analogies 18.67 17.83 16.01 12.36
Pattern Completion 17.97 16.89 13.89 10.88
Total 122.57 113.84 102.02 81.31
Non-Verbal 71.08 67.56 60.76 47.56
Verbal 51.49 46.28 41.26 33.75
Total IQ 104.2 100 94.34 84.42
Non-Verbal IQ 102.95 100 94.3 83.23
Verbal IQ 105.82 100 94.39 85.99

IQ conversions set white Afrikaans to 100 and use the overall standard deviation.

Eyferth 1961:

The Eyferth Study” is infamous in these narrow circles as a study used to show that, once free of the racist american environment and/or toxic black culture, blacks have IQs very close to whites.

The study was on bastards born of German women who were raped by US troops during occupation at the end of World War 2, and looked at their IQs.

Blacks in the US Army had the bottom 30% excluded for failing a mental test, which puts the best estimate for the median IQ of US Army blacks in 1945 at 90.77. This is done simply by removing IQs below 77.14 from a black IQ bell curve (which is the bottom 30%), and then calculating the area above 77.14 which takes up 35% of the area under the curve, and that area ends at 90.77.

Here is a visual explanation of what I did so you don’t think I’m doing anything fishy:


(Since this is no longer a normal distribution, but a truncated normal distribution, the median is not the same as the mean. In this case, the mean will be higher. I don’t know how much higher because I don’t know how to find the mean of the section of a normal distribution. But I know I can’t overestimate the black IQ in this sample if I use the median, so I’m using the median.)

In this study, however, “20 to 25 percent” of the “African” rapists were North African. Based on an estimate of Indians in the UK of 93, we can conservatively estimate their IQ, – or at least their “genotypic IQ” – to be 93.

So then, what would we expect the IQs of the mixed-race bastards to be? Well, assuming the German women have an average IQ of 100, we would expect the illegitimates to have an IQ of 95.66 or 95.61 depending on how many North Africans are in there, which averages to 95.635.

About 3% of white soldiers were rejected for too low IQs, which would raise the white soldier IQ to around 101.

Without any specific knowledge of what the IQs of the rapists are, just going purely off of demographic data and population exclusion, that is what any heredetarian would predict (or pretty close to it).

Now, here is the great Eyferth study that casts aside the heredetarian dogma, compared to what the numbers should be according to heredetarians:

Group Eyferth IQ Heredetarian “Prediction”
White Males 101 100.5
White Females 93 100.5
Mixed Males 97 95.6
Mixed Females 96 95.6

The low white score is entirely a function of the low white female score. Just as a thought experiment, for the heredetarian prediction to match the Eyferth results of 96.5, the IQs of the African rapists – Sub-Saharan and North African combined – would have to be 93, or at least a “genotypic IQ” of 93.

Aside from the weird white female IQ score, Eyferth is more a confirmation of heredetarian predictions than an argument against it.

Rushton (2007)

In 2007 Philippe Rushton looked at South African University students. These were his results:

Group IQ Number
East Asians 116 23
Whites 113 398
South Asians (Indians / Pakistanis) 106 212
Coloreds 103 36
Blacks 98 887

For the blacks and mixed black-whites (coloreds) we would expect a compression effect, since you have to have a certain IQ to get into a university, and more blacks will not be smart enough to get in than coloreds. But even with this compression effect, we see coloreds intermediate between blacks and whites.

Udry (2003)

Richard Udry looked at the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, and one of the things he did was look at the PVT and GPAs of different races and combinations. The whites, blacks, Asians, whites / Asians and mulattoes are included here:

Race % with “high GPA” % with “high PVT score” Number
White 32.27 26.98 46364
White / Asian 37.58 23.08 583
Asian 43.16 20.99 4133
Mulatto 24.19 18.2 416
Black 15.45 7.94 13530

The data here is not IQ data, though I could probably go find the raw scores and use this as more IQ data. The “high PVT score” of the Mulattoes compared to blacks is approximate confirmation of heredetarian views on all of this, but the real interesting thing here is with the White / Asian hybrids.

Because the hybrids are intermediate in BOTH GPA and PVT score – but whites score higher on PVT and lower on GPA than Asians. And the W/A hybrids were below the whites but above the Asians on PVT, and above the whites but below the Asians on GPA.

NAEP 2011

Using the NAEP explorer, the blogger from Unwelcome Discovery looked at the NAEP scores of Blacks, Whites and mixed Black-Whites in 2011.

Race Math Score Reading Score
White 293.6 274.6
Black-White Mixed 277.8 256.2
Black 263 249.2

I don’t know what the sample size for this was, but it’s the NAEP so it’s going to be huge.

In the future, if I have time, I would like to do this myself and get the sample size, and look at the Asian-White hybrids and see if they score intermediate on BOTH math and verbal even though Whites do better on verbal and Asians do better on math. That would be evidence that the composition of intelligence between whites and asians is down to genetics, not just the overall difference.

But in the mean time the NAEP is just one more log on the pile of the intermediate race = intermediate IQ general trend.

Tizard 1974:

In 1974 Barbara Tizard went to some Caribbean countries and gave some kids aged 3 to 4.5 some IQ tests. Here were the results:

1st Study

Race IQ Number
White 100.5 39
Black 102.35 22
Mixed 102.5 24

2nd Study

Race In Orphanage Number Adopted Number Restored to Mother Number
White 101.2 10 113 17 98.2 9
Mixed 109.3 7 119.9 7 102.2 5
Black 105.6 8 106 1

The obvious problem with this study is that the sample is heavily selected and the sample sizes are small. What it shows is that blacks and mulattoes in caribbean orphanages had higher IQs than whites did at age 4.5. I don’t think any conclusions can be drawn from such a weird study, but I’m putting it up so I’m not accused of “ignoring the data”.


Most the data on mixed-race people are of blacks and whites. In the future perhaps we’ll get more White-Asian hybrid data; and the silver lining of increased race-mixing is that there will be more of them to test.

Of course, you can always claim that mixed-race people have intermediate home environments, or face intermediate racism, but that complicates the environmental side of things. You’re now saying that mixed-race people face intermediate levels of hardship in such a way as to produce intermediate IQs.

The genetic side faces almost no complication. Sure, there are some very few examples when blacks score higher than whites, but we already knew that. And genes are a much simpler global explanation.

And with the PVT and GPA differences between whites and asians, the environmentalist now has to have a specific environmental explanation for that – because whites do better on the PVT, but have worse GPA, and mixed-race white-asian hybrids are intermediate on both. The genetic explanation is much simpler.

3 thoughts on “Race and IQ: Mixed Populations”

  1. Re: Tizard 1974

    Many studies have found that blacks have a higher IQ than whites at age 4. It should not be surprising, similar results are found in all ape and most mammalian species. Chimpanzees have a higher IQ than human babies up to about the age of 9 months.

    Consider how most mammals get up and walk within minutes of birth. That requires a sort of intelligence, but humans take much, much longer to do that.

    In general, among ape species the longer it takes the juvenile to reach maturity, the more intelligent they are at maturity. We also know that blacks reach biological maturity (as measured by menarche or spermarche) two or three years earlier than whites, who in turn reach it about a year earlier than East Asians. All these are averages, of course, and specifics vary and can be affected by environmental effects such as diet or the lack of a biological father in the home, both of which bring the onset earlier.


Leave a Reply to Marcus Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s