By Daniel Alemu
In the November 2006 issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, entitled “Mind the gap in intelligence: Re-examining the relationship between inequality and health, author Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics and Political Science argued under the guise of an allegedly “objective” and statistically supported study that “individuals in wealthier and more egalitarian societies live longer and stay healthier, not because they are wealthier or more egalitarian but because they are more intelligent” (pg. 623). By this logic, diseases are allegedly associated with low national IQs in developing countries with Ethiopia heading the list with the lowest national IQ of 63 out of 185 nations followed by Sierra Leone.
The author, building upon his own previous theories that have not gained any recognition, and through showing an insignificant correlation between income, on the one hand, and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate, on the other, attempts to prove that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and life expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality rate. He further tries to expound this argument on a microlevel through surprisingly applying verbal intelligence test measured by GSS rather than IQ test to measure intelligence. The conclusion being as noted above.
The author heavily overelies in the majority of his work on highly controversial figures
like A. Jensen, and works like and “the Wealth of Nations” (by Lynn and Vanhanen) from which he uncritically copies the national IQ measurements!
In the highly controversial, and the Wealth of Nations, the IQ measurements and methodology are strongly criticized, which makes the work as a whole unreliable.
Even though so-called “national IQs†(if such a category/measurement can be viable at
all) for most of the 185 nations they study do not exist at all, they find ‘creative’ ways to undertake the measurement. So for example the national IQ for El Salvador is calculated out of the average of the national IQ for Guatemala and Colombia since they are both neigbours of the country in question? But in the case of Kyrgyzstan, they calculated the national IQ through an average of Iran and Tukey in which both are not negibours of the country in question. While in the case of Vietnam they calculated the national IQ out of the average of that of China and Thailand, even though historically the vietnamese are not related to the Thai while there is strong ethnic, cultural and historical affiliation to China.
From here, the authors ignore the ethnic diversity and heterogeneity of third world
countries, the shifting and imposition of national boundaries and movement of populations via immigration, for example, factors which all deem the calculation of a
national IQ impossible, not to mention Kanazawa’s conclusions. If empirically tested, one
can assume to find that Ethiopians in the Diaspora enjoy a healthier life than those at
home even though their IQ, according to Kanazawa, is necessarily the same since it’s
genetically inherited!
In addition, one wonders if a calculation of IQ is possible at all, and if so considering the
culturally biased current IQ measurement tests if their results are of any applicibality to
third world people, not to mention that the correlation between IQ tests and intelligence
which Kanazawa heavily relies on is one that awaits proof.
Furthermore, the Copenhagen Consensus Project have showed that deficiency in iodine
results in lower IQ scores and thus the relationship between inequality and IQ scores,
since particuarly in inland territories where iodine is scarce, only people with capacity
can obtain it. Also, the “Flynn Effect” that indicates that IQ scores improve with time is
totally neglected for the benefit of genetic explanations of IQ?! Moreover, Kanazawa
explains poorly why IQ itself cannot be a consequence of income inequality.
A quick look at the table by Lynn and Vanhanen of national IQs and a comparison
between Denmark and the US shows that even though Denmark ranks higher in
egalitarianism and wealth, the US still leads in life expectancy at birth, infant mortality
and age-specific mortatlity. Findings from the table Kanazawa himself so relies upon conflict strongly with his conclusions.
After carefully reading Kanazawa’s article, I came to see clearly that it is a miserable
attempt to stir debate through imposing his bankrupt theories of the Savanna Principle
and the evolution of general intelligence on the academic community and thus gain some
recognition! Having said that, I believe it is still a mistake to leave these views
unchallenged. The ideological conviction behind these views invokes only Western race
theorists of the 19th century that brought to the emergence of the Eugenics movement.
From here, I call upon Ethiopian and African health and medical professionals to
challenge these views publicly. I further call for the formation of a body of scholars that can follow and challenge such disgraceful views.
Daniel Alemu, London
[email protected]