Statistical Policy Working Paper 2 - Report On Statistical Bb: Fill & Download for Free

Not EXACTLY, but ESTIMATED.Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000Posted on February 23, 2017 | Comments Offon Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000The results of three recently-released studies that were not included in the last IUCN Red List assessment add more than 2,050 bears (on average)1to the official 2015 global polar bear estimate, a point you won’t likely hear next Monday (27 February) from most polar bear specialists, conservation organizations, their cheerleaders and corporate sponsors on International Polar Bear Day.This means the adjusted 2015 global estimate for polar bears should be about 28,500 (average), a marked increase over the official estimate of 26,500 (average) for 2015 — and an even larger increase over the 2005 estimate of about 22,500 (average)2, despite the dramatic loss of summer sea ice since 2007 that we hear about endlessly.It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017 v3).Updated 1 June 2017: see addition to Footnote 2.A result, I have been remiss to point out [updated 28 Feb. 2017 & included in revised Version 3 of Crockford 2017], that Drs. Kesten Green, Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon correctly concluded in 2008 was a likely outcome. In their 2008 paper that roundly criticized the USGS forecasting methods used to support placing polar bears on the US Endangered Species List (Armstrong et al. 2008:390), they concluded:“Given the upward trend in polar bear numbers over the past few decades, a modest upward trend is likely to continue in the near future because the apparent cause of the trend (hunting restrictions) remains.”So when you hear, “Save the polar bears, their future is grim” next week, remember that polar bears are thriving right now because those future predictions were flawed: summer sea ice is not critical habitat for polar bears. Instead of a vacuous “vanishing species” polar bear T-shirt from WWF, buy Polar Bear Facts and Myths for the kids in your life – and Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change for your home or community library. You’ll be glad you did.FOOTNOTES:1. Total for all three estimate increases is 2054, or about 2050.Barents Sea (BS) estimated at 3749 for entire region, up 42% (1109) since 2004 estimate of 2640, based on 42% Svalbard increase determined in 2015 (Norwegian Polar Institute 2015; Crockford 2017 v2) applied across the region. This is consistent with observations in 2004 that researchers found about three times (2.87) as many bears in the Russian sector than in Svalbard (Aars et al. 2009), and the stated expectation by Norwegian biologists that the population size would continue to increase despite declines in sea ice (Fauchald et al. 2014).Baffin Bay (BB) estimate 2,826 (95% CI = 2,059-3,593) at 2013 (SWG 2016), up 752.Kane Basin (KB) estimate 357 (95% CI: 221 – 493) at 2013 (SWG 2016), up 193.2. USGS polar bear biologists (Amstrup et al. 2007) used a figure of 24,500 for the global population size in 2005 to support their prediction of doom at mid-century that put polar bears on the US Endangered Species List (Crockford 2017 v3). If we use that figure instead of the average of “20,000-25,000” the increase at 2015 (with the amended data) is still a remarkable 16%.Added 1 June 2017: As emphasized in my paper, although this increase in population size may not be statistically significant within the very wide margins of error used for such estimates, it is clearly not even a marginal decline, let alone the catastrophic decline that was predicted to occur.Update 26 Feb 2017. Original image replaced, without % calculation.Update 1 March 2017. Crockford 2017 updated, Version 3 is now the most recent available.REFERENCESAars, J., Marques, T.A., Buckland, S.T., Andersen, M., Belikov, S., Boltunov, A., et al. 2009. Estimating the Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation. Marine Mammal Science 25:35-52.Amstrup, S.C.,Marcot, B.G. and Douglas,D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. Administrative Report, US Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 8.8 MB pdf here [may no longer be available online]Armstrong, J.S., Green, K.C. and Soon, W. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces38:382–405.Crockford, S.J. 2017 v3. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3Fauchald, P., Arneberg, P., Berge, J., Gerland, S., Kovacs, K.M., Reigstad, M. and Sundet, J.H. 2014. An assessment of MOSJ – the state of the marine environment around Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Norwegian Polar Institute Report Series no. 145. Available at http://www.mosj.no/en/documents/SWG [Scientific Working Group to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear]. 2016. Re-Assessment of the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin Polar Bear Subpopulations: Final Report to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear. +636 pp. http://www.gov.nu.ca/documents-publications/349

I'm Black, sub-Saharan African, I don’t have a low IQ, and I explore psychology and sociology, so listen to me. This is going to be a really long post.The subject of the varied average measured intelligence across races is highly sensitive, yet critical, to a point where a complete-picture analysis is all that would suffice. In this post, we shall touch the science and ethics, the broad perspectives and the view from my subjective angle via personal experiences, where applicable.1. Intelligence is a thing; IQ is a thing:I wish I could simply get on with the business of this post without going through this point, but it will not be complete without getting square on the bell curve.• Intelligence is definable. Arguments attempting to discredit intelligence as being merely a social construct fail to recognize that the very tools utilized in formulating those arguments are themselves a product of society, hence social construction does not discredit validity. The violent resistance one risks facing when promoting certain ideas related to intelligence comes from the rarity factor, which results in social discrimination.Just about all positive traits or qualities known to man attract one form of envy or the other. Beauty, wealth, power, admiration, fame, and of course intelligence. We find that the very value of these things is based on the fact that some people possess more than others, and the greater in quantity, the rarer it gets. Intelligence as a psychologically defined concept, however, is further removed from these unevenly distributed qualities, as in addition to being rare, it is considered as mostly fixed. One does nothing to get it, one does minimally to maintain it, and when it does change, there is more likely a decrease than an increase. For all practical purposes, this is permanent, hope-deprived discrimination.This resentment against the concept of intelligence does not measure up against the overwhelming evidence that has been clinically defined, and intelligent people tend to recognize each other with substantial accuracy.• Speaking of accuracy, IQ is—to the best of our scientific knowledge and tools,—an objective measure of intelligence. In fact, if you asked a random sample of anti-IQ-ers to present their best, most complex arguments against IQ, the result would be such that the best debaters will—themselves—have higher IQs than the lousy ones.Some naysayers often raise the objection that IQ tests 'were designed to identify mental retardation among French boy pupils', but these points simply ignore the fact that the science of psychometrics has been revised, updated, and tested by numerous credible psychologists and statisticians over several decades. Whatever the tests were initially designed for matters less than the fact that they are reliable for whatever purposes we have taken to applying them.• The conclusion that IQ tests are a poor attempt at reducing a complex phenomenon as human intelligence to a 2 or 3 digit number is very, very true. Luckily for us all, that is not what IQ scores are. IQ scores are essentially based on a comparison between two (and more) human beings.Indeed, we cannot represent laughter with a mere number. However, we can compare the relative loudness of two distinct sounds of laughter, plus other variables like the time spent laughing. This gives us a good idea of who laughed more. We can then apply this formula to crowds at a stand-up comedy show. And this, plus frequency of laughter and diversity of laugher's demographics, can give us a good numerical value to compare the funniness of various comedians.If the values are sufficiently far apart, most of the time between two comedians, we can say, with statistical confidence, that one is funnier than the other. For IQ, the global average is 100, scores at around 130 are generally considered high, and much higher scores are attainable with some degree of accuracy.2. sub-Saharan African countries do have a relatively low average IQ:• Multiple research results within the USA consistently show a relatively constant difference in IQ scores among different races, with the average for Blacks being the least (around 85), Latinos next up before Whites (around 100), and East Asians higher (around 107).• Tests around the globe in the original regions of these races, including African countries, show a similar hierarchy in IQ scores, with the countries in sub-Saharan Africa averaging at around 70 (some as high as 91, others as low as 65). While some of these reports have been challenged, but the countries in question have failed to come up with a counter deemed more reliable.• The socioeconomic conditions across nations, including the prevalence of diseases, illiteracy, and hunger correlates significantly well with IQ averages. Other notable observations including social responsibility, failed governance, adherence to superstitions and religious fanaticism also offer reasons for why the IQ differences agree with experience.3. The environment plays a disproportionately significant role:• Poverty: While IQ tends towards a hereditary factor of around 75% in developed countries, it is known that poverty stunts IQ heavily, such that individuals in underdeveloped regions with poor nutrition suffer deficits in cognitive ability beyond what could have been predicted for environmental impact in more prosperous societies. As a result, one could effect an improvement in the IQ scores of a small population of malnourished kids by simply providing them with a better diet.• Diseases play a very significant role in child IQ, sometimes resulting in a permanent underperformance for life. Malaria and intestinal worms have been proven to cause so much damage that simply de-worming a group of children over a given period would cause an increase in IQ and academic performance (this placebo-controlled study demonstrates.)• Cultural factors and hence the quality of education are known to affect IQ scores in children to a significant degree. In fact, kids who temporarily have a drop in IQ whenever they are are out of school for long. This dependency on formal education, however significant during childhood, is not permanent. As children mature into adults, their cognitive abilities tend to even out; and IQs in young adults will match their predicted average. [Edit: it is also worthy of note that one South African study recorded an increase of the average IQ score from 83 to 96 upon “receiving training on Matrices-type items.”]• From experience, heat is very, very bad for optimal mental performance. Although the current literature as discussed here provides conflicting results on experiments aimed at proving the relationship between environmental heat and cognitive ability and development. Extreme cold seems to have a detrimental impact, as well.The global average IQ of 100 is the one for White males. Other races have demonstrated different averages. In fact, within the same race, different ethnic groups show different averages.4. At the root of it all, is genetics:The environmental effects on intelligence are not to be disputed. However, the role of genetics should not be swept under the carpet. The following facts are discussed in this 30-year metastudy.• Socioeconomic correction: The US offers a unique environment for interracial studies on intelligence if one found it necessary, as its diversified demographics and shared, progressive culture makes it easier for socio-cultural and economic barriers to be surmounted. However, owing to the ugly history of racism and oppression—notably against the Blacks—, there is justifiable reason for some to conclude that the Land of the Free just might not be the perfect Petri dish for this experiment, as the bitter Black history does account for all the apparent deficits in cognitive abilities resulting in the lower average IQ of the population. Interestingly, this claim has been disproved to all scientific certainty, based on the results of studies where these socioeconomic factors were controlled for; including results from intervention programs.• Adoption studies and the Asian catch-up: studies involving adopted children of African and of East-Asian descents show that while the adopted Black kids had a higher average than their non-adopted counterparts, they still averaged lower than the Whites in White homes to which they were adopted. This fact is more significant when we consider that in the case of East-Asians, they ultimately averaged higher than the White kids in their adopted homes; even though they had once averaged lower due to malnutrition. They catch-up and overtake. This lends credence to the position that a strong genetic component is at play.• Cultural bias? One anti-geneticist stance is that IQ tests are heavily biased to language and culture. For this reason, culture-fair tests have been administered, which have little to no natural language instructions, and which test for the general factor of intelligence by one's ability to determine missing patterns. Interestingly, studies show that African-American test-takers do better on the culture-unfair tests with all the English and math than they do on the pattern only tests. Curiously, Non-Black test-takers tend to show less discrepancy between their scores on both test types, on average.• Racial admixture: Say there are two main groups; AA and BB, and a mixed group-AB. Group-AA scores a lower average, group-BB score a higher average. If there is a strong genetic component to inter-group IQ variety, then when people of a mixed group - AB are tested, they should score a higher average than group-AA, but a lower average than group-BB, right? Well, this is what happens with interracial IQ variation as well.• Cranial capacity: again, skull volume and brain size correlate with IQ; and the Black-White-Asian chain is kept intact. Oh, don't think body size is not accounted for. In fact, the numbers indicate that the Black kids are usually larger at infancy (where nutrition is balanced), and they consistently measure average smaller brain size.Some of the educated people who are skeptical about genetic causes in the lower average scores in Black populations have no trouble accepting the same for the apparently high IQ average (about 117) of Ashkenazi Jews. Or the fact that the presence of Neanderthal genes in a population's DNA correlates with a higher their average score.A good number of these 'kind' folks are sensitive White people who do not want to promote racist ideologies. While I—on behalf of my ancestors—thank them for their consideration, I do not think denial will help the matter, ultimately. Loyalty is to Truth. And the truth is, the racial differences in IQ makes sense in the light of the currently accepted history of mankind in anthropology. The long story is summarized thus: 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of the now Caucasians left Africa. Some 45,000 years ago, the ancestors of today's East-Asians were separated from the Caucasians.Although there has been lots of interbreeding over millennia, the fairly preserved genetic compositions which we call race today has profound implications on our similarities and differences. It is okay. We don't have to be one and the same to respect each other. Our ancestors made their survival choices during adaptation. It makes sense that we bred for varying degrees of raw intelligence. As I mention below, this is nothing to apologize for.5. There is a cultural factor in Intelligence:• 'The' Cultural Bias: There is a legitimate concern for IQ bias, and it is not about the IQ tests themselves. There are certain qualitative (behavioral characteristics) and quantitative (tested score) discrepancies in intelligence among races. For instance, a group of Black students with an IQ of about 100 each would tend to do better at subsections of mathematical reasoning in contrast to White students with the same IQ; who do better in the verbal reasoning sections.Across races, one would find clear qualitative discrepancies in factors like level of creativity, social importance, sociability and cultural health, divergent thinking threshold, conscientiousness and assertiveness, level of ambition and so on, as they should correlate with a certain IQ level.So qualitative studies on giftedness in relation to IQ will not find the same patterns in the US as it will in Cameroon for IQ scores 130 to 145, and 145 to 160. Factors like vocabulary size, hobbies, and taste in music will vary across these cultures in spite of the level of education and exposure. However, such comparisons may be difficult to make without having them both in the same experimental environment; directly or virtually via the Internet.One may try to argue off this bias totally, by pointing out that we see a bell curve in all populations and races where IQ tests are administered, and it really predicts future performance in those populations, as well. But that is either poor logic or dishonesty. With the example of the laughter measurement analogy, it would not be surprising that a population in Japan laughs differently than one in Nigeria. Maybe one group laughs louder, more frequently, and much longer. However, we may find a similar distribution in both cases. And more laughter would mean a better comedian in both cases. However, earning a composite score of 500 points in Nigeria is not the same as earning 500 points in Japan. The points mean the same mathematically, but not the same psychologically.This also applies to IQ, except that the cause would be culturally influenced, and rooted in genetics. The same way 'laughter points' isn't funniness itself, but an indication of one, IQ isn't intelligence itself but a very, very good indication of knew. This is why the Flynn effect—the observation by Flynn that average IQ has increased over the past decades in developed countries—does not imply a direct ratio in intelligence increase in those countries.• Emergent intelligence: Social intelligence and societal structure account for the persistence of the qualitative differences as listed above. By social intelligence, I don't mean some new construct of intelligence which everyone can—finally—win it if they work hard. Rather, this refers to the emergence of a social sense of doing things right.Factors that influence this include individual intelligence, the environment, and radical variables like wars and unexpected disasters. The societal structure supporting the social intelligence in many African countries is one that places more emphasis on groups than individuals: 'groupthink', family values, elders' advice, myths, and superstitions are some characteristics of this structure. With these features come a strong sense of community, culture, and heritage.The fact that the cultures take pride in stasis rather than change means that one could lead a productive life by simply doing things 'as our forefathers' did them. While this offers limited liberty for those with extremely high scores, it offers a safe haven for those with extremely low scores. What this means comparing two cultures is, the culture with higher average scores has evolved around high intelligence, while the other has evolved prioritizing other traits rather than intelligence. This priority may be evident in the fact that even today, psychometric tests are not popularly administered by institutions in many African countries.• IQ conversion factor: One should best think of trans-national IQ as having a conversion factor like currencies, and note that what an IQ of 110 means for a (Caucasoid) American, a Swiss, or a Singaporean is not what it means for a Kenyan, a Ghanaian, or a Senegalese. The score itself is the same value, but it does not mean the same for their cultural health, as explained above. Being 5ft tall in Indonesia does not mean the same for physical attraction, and hence confidence, as it would mean in the Netherlands. Of course, it is easier to just stick to the scores without considering the country’s average every time one refers to a group's or an individual's score. However, when it comes down to making decisions based on these scores, these details become more important.6. The ethics are as important as the facts:Facts are neither harmful nor helpful in themselves. But there are no such things as 'facts in themselves' as far as they are conceived of and communicated by the human mind. Given that scientific knowledge is pursued—presumably—for the benefit of mankind, it is as a result of our weaknesses, and not our wisdom if we do not ensure the most ethical applications of our discoveries.• The psychological effects of these facts on Blacks are not inconsequential. In fact, at least one study has shown that merely being reminded one was Black (by asking them to indicate their race) before a timed test reduces their performance in mathematics noticeably. And conversely, reminding one they are White or Asian may have an opposite effect. So, not only are these facts going to tell us an unpleasant truth about the current state of affairs, under certain conditions of abuse, they can worsen performance in the otherwise competent, resulting in a self-fulfilled prophecy. For anyone who supports progress, and who believes it should be attained through the maximization of man's intellectual output, this is a factor to reckon with.I, in all my self-assured immunity to sentiments, went through great stress while studying the relevant research materials leading to this post. My performance, as determined by the computer algorithms, on certain cognitive tasks were quite shaky—downwards—during these periods, apparently due to anxiety from trying not to screw up. In fact, I will name it the ‘Moses Neurosis’: it's the unbearable, disturbing feeling of pressure and a strong burden to, with one's achievements, represent a disadvantaged group to which they ultimately belong, (especially when they are in a position of advantage;) and the anxiety resulting from the failure—or the thought of failure—to accomplishing this.• We should consider responsible, progressive ways to state the fact. If the multiple studies on priming, framing, and association have taught us anything, it is that the words we use in making statements significantly influence the reactions we get. So the ultimate criterion for sticking to words or phrases should be intellectual honesty. Instead of saying Group A Members have lower IQs, we should state that such a group's average IQ is lower. Doing the former and then stating the figure unwittingly places that tag on everyone's forehead, who remotely fits the description. Exactly what one should not do is see someone of African descent and insist, against all evidence to the contrary, that they have an IQ of 70. It merely signifies one's own high degree of irrationality.Among the people I've interacted with online, I was briefly in contact with a White male who is in college. As our discussion progressed, it turned out that he contacted me to call me out on my fraud: he had visited my website and saw the 'testimonials' where multiple contributors expressed their praise for my drive and intellect, referring to me as a "genius", and pretty much the Messiah in the making. This had apparently annoyed him so much, that he fetched his own score report on a high-range cognitive ability test I had taken, and came to show me that he had scored 2 points higher than me. He went on to show other test reports where he scored higher, and declared, "...but I don't believe I am a genius". I replied with the cheapest argument, "I didn't write those things, as you must have seen. They were gathered from people who have known me for long, some over a decade, and met me in different places". His response? "Maybe you are surrounded by dumb people". I didn't want to think of this as a mere racist remark, so I looked for other explanations.Eventually, I realized it needed not to be mysterious: if he took to the facts he saw online, he may have seen 'studies' stating the average IQ in Nigeria at anywhere from 67 to 85. With a little bit of imagination, one could construct a case that would validate the saying, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". He simply could not see those compliments as to have come from people of competent intellect. It is, hence, not superfluous to emphasize that all races have people of extremely low, average, and extremely high IQs.Interestingly, this sense of superiority was coming from a young man whose proudest creation was an experimental IQ test based on verbal analogies, and upon my request to read his written work, he sent me his engineering homework paper filled with weakly structured statements and arguments which could be improved. I realize that it is difficult to reconcile one being from a poverty-prevalent country, having been groomed in some of the worst educational climates, has access to less information and intellectual opportunities, and at the same time, being highly intelligent. I know. I honestly think it is a miracle, myself. This lends much credence to the 'nature' side of the already unbalanced 'nature versus nurture' scale.7. We have a choice to productive interpretation:Racial disparities in IQ is indeed significant. This is primarily because IQ is significant, and we cannot explore psychometric intelligence without spotting those differences. It does not matter much whose construct IQ is, as much as it matters that it is a good predictor of academic and job performance. Aligning a nation's economic strategies with its intellectual resources is the only way it can prosper in this century. Countries not satisfied with the current results should undergo their own research.• Immigration and the brain drain: It has been my experience that intelligent Nigerians do way better in advanced economies than they could possibly do in Nigeria. This notable occurrence is evident in the spiked academic performance of students who make it across the ocean. Whatever the root cause, it is evident that the system caters for their needs, or at least motivates them to excel. The reality of these average IQ differences should influence government policies, and inspire strategic programs to attract the brightest minds back to their home countries.• Affirmative action: These facts have undeniable implications in regions where people are systemically selected to counter under-representation of a group, for the sake of diversity. We should think about efficient ways to tackle the under-representation at the very roots, and understanding the intricacies of racial cognitive variation will be of key importance.Conclusion:People of certain regions score a lower average IQ than others. Sub-Saharan Africans have some of the lowest average scores, according to the best available data.This is nothing to be angry about, to mourn over, or to apologize for. It is silly to make this a Black versus White thing. At the same time, that this has been made into an interracial contest does not strike me as a surprise. If it had been that Black Africans scored a higher average, we would not have heard the last of it. People are quick to brag about how Nigerians are the most educated group in the US, the country currently ranks number 1 in world scrabble, and how a Nigerian family is “the smartest family in the UK.”The facts may cause some psychological stress and much controversy, but we should note that the numbers themselves do not offer subtle details. These details we should look into, with a practical, productive, progressive approach; knowing that within our circumstances lie lots of opportunities begging to be exploited.