What is the average iq of the black man
Executive summary
The most defensible answer is that there is no single, fixed "average IQ of the black man" worldwide; measured group averages vary by population, test, time and environment, but for African Americans recent studies place mean IQ scores below the U.S. white mean (for example ~90–92 on common tests), while global estimates for African-descended populations are reported lower in some literature (range cited in sources from ~70 to mid-80s) [1][2][3][4]. These numbers are descriptive of test performance under particular conditions, not proof of innate, immutable differences, and they are heavily contested and shaped by social, historical and methodological factors [5][6].
1. What the question is actually asking and why it’s fraught
As phrased, the question seeks a single average IQ for “the black man,” but scholarly sources emphasize that IQ is a test score distribution that depends on which population is sampled, which test is used, and when and where testing occurred, so collapsing diverse groups into one figure misrepresents both statistics and people [6][5].
2. What published data report for African Americans in the U.S.
Large reviews and trend analyses report that African American mean scores on widely used IQ and achievement tests have historically been below the U.S. white mean (often set at 100), with reported contemporary estimates for Black students on Wechsler-type tests around the low 90s (for example an average of ~92.1 on some Wechsler child tests in the periods surveyed) and earlier average estimates near ~90.5 in aggregate analyses of late 20th‑century gains [1][2][5].
3. Broader, global and historical figures cited in the literature
Some researchers who compare cross-national or colonial-era samples report wider ranges: certain analyses cited in the literature place sub-Saharan African national averages much lower (papers and books referenced by reviews have reported means near 70 for some samples), while other reviews summarize continental or ancestry groups with averages in the mid-80s for people of African descent in global comparisons [3][4]. These global figures come from heterogeneous datasets and methods and are not equivalent to contemporary U.S. Black populations [3].
4. Why averages shift over time and why causation is disputed
Empirical work shows IQ and test scores rise with changing environments—schooling, nutrition, health and test familiarity—so observed gaps have narrowed over recent decades and are sensitive to environmental interventions (the “Flynn effect” and narrowing Black–White gaps are documented) [5][2]. Researchers and commentators disagree about the relative contribution of genetics versus environment; mainstream experts emphasize environmental, social and measurement factors, while some controversial authors interpret group means as partly biological—an interpretation critics say is methodologically and ethically fraught [5][6][4].
5. Measurement, stereotype threat, and methodological caveats
Tests are context-sensitive: stereotype threat, socioeconomic differences, family and school environments, adoption and migration studies, and the construction and norming of tests all affect scores, and many researchers caution that test means do not equate to immutable cognitive potential [5][6][7]. Historical misuse of early test data by eugenicists and the persistence of contested methods in some modern reviews further complicate interpretation and warrant caution [6][4].
6. Bottom line for interpreting any single number
If the question seeks a single hard number, the best available, context‑bound responses are: for African Americans in U.S. testing literature in the late 20th–early 21st century, means around the low 90s are reported on many standard tests; some global comparisons and older regional studies report lower averages (70–85) for particular sub-Saharan samples, but those findings are heterogeneous and heavily debated [1][2][3][4]. Any such figure should be read as a descriptive test-score average under specific conditions, not as a definitive statement about innate ability, and interpretation requires attention to environment, methodology and historical context [5][6].