Refugees’ Intelligence: Response to Comments, Suggestions and Criticism

In “Intelligence of refugees in Germany”, we (Rindermann et al., 2024) proposed both a main and a secondary claim: 1. The average IQ scores for refugees in Germany is between 85 and 88. 2. An analysis of possible causes of these results within the refugee sample (i.e., differences within the group) revealed correlations with individual and country-of-origin average educational levels, with wealth, and with the background factors of culture and ancestry. In the same issue in which our article was published, the Journal of Controversial Ideas published critical commentaries on the article. The IQ scores were not criticized, but questions were raised about how this result can be explained and whether the correct methods were used. For example, the selection of indicators for genetic ancestry (formerly referred to as “evolution”) was criticized. If other indicators (genetic distances to South Africa or Ethiopia) are chosen, the results remain robust (for individual BOMAT-IQ r = .29 vs. .22/.28, for country level r = .67 vs. .57/.77). It was claimed that a factor analysis with two items to determine a g-factor would be incorrect. I disagree; in my view, the method is valid, but it offers no advantage over simple averaging. It was also said that the path model showed warnings and therefore produced erroneous results. This was due to the fact that too many paths were estimated relative to the number of countries. If one variable and its paths are removed, the pattern of results remains largely robust for the others (but the direct effect for country IQ on individual IQ increases from βCA = .36 to βCA = .79). Commentaries also argued that the intelligence level of refugees is not a sound reason against helping them. We did not claim that it is. However, we point out in this response that the legitimate interests and rights of the local population must also be taken into account. The burdens and sacrifices that migration entails for host societies must be recognized, acknowledged and included in an ethical evaluation.