Intelligence: Some Research

by La Shawn on 02.04.06

in General

Monday, February 6 – Comments/Trackbacks are open
——————————————————————————————————————————–

See Part I on this series, Intelligence: The Last Taboo.

Commenting is temporarily disabled on this post because I want people to actually read some of this material first. I remember the temptation to sound off on blogs without reading the entire post or even part of it. I will enable comments for discussion.

Some people won’t bother reading much of this post, the previous one, or any of the studies I linked. They’ll just wait until I open comments add their 2 cents. It’s very frustrating to cover something in a post and comments only to have readers disregard the time and energy put into it. Others will do me the courtesy of reading all the information compiled before weighing in. Thanks in advance. :)

I must say I’m impressed by the quality of responses to the first post, considering the sensitive topic. I didn’t delete or block anyone. Impressive.

Keep in mind that this is a blog post, not a publishable article or research paper. I did my best to organize it and make it as coherent as possible. I link to studies and articles when discussing facts. Unsourced information is my opinion based on experience and observation.

***

Introduction

When was the last time you had to use an algebraic equation as an adult in the course of a day? When, in recent memory, were you required to make decisions under test conditions? What practical purpose, if any, do you believe IQ scores serve?

Much ado has been made about the irrelevance of general intelligence, or g, an attribute that IQ tests are designed to measure. Although most researchers, including those who don’t like discussing cognitive differences in polite company, agree that cognitive ability correlates (as opposed to causes — I explain the difference further in the post) with life outcomes, it doesn’t mean IQ scores determine who we are and how we live our lives. Our choices are still ours to make, and each of us is responsible for our own lives. It’s important to remember that as you read this post and the studies.

Whether people want to admit it or not, cognitive differences among groups affect public policy in a free society. In the quest for egalitarianism, some people will get left behind. That’s how life works. The problem in a country like the U.S., with its history of human bondage, legal racial discrimination, and racial diversity, differences in IQ will be stark. If we were a homogenous society, you’d still find individuals with varying levels of cognitive ability. Politically, this may cause headaches, but it would be an issue of class and not race.

But we live in a society with different subcultures and races. Because one racial group tends to score lower than others and members of that racial group were formerly enslaved and discriminated against, or depends on welfare at disproportionate rates, or commits violent crimes at disproportionate rates, or requires lower standards in order to “compete” in society, it is no surprise that even the mere mention of cognitive differences causes a ruckus.

But I’m going to blog about it because I want readers to understand it, just as I want to understand it.

At this point only an extremely slow individual still believes more money for government schools produces academic success. We’ve become a nanny state, convinced that government can and will solve anything. To be honest, I’m speaking as someone who was born into a nanny state. It is my wish to live in a country with the smallest central government possible, not my experience. This is where the libertarian in me stirs, yearning to come out of the closet. Leave people alone, get out of their business, and let them run their own lives. It sounds noble until I remember issues like homosexual “marriage” or child killing. The government has a stake in these matters and should not “leave people alone.”

But my libertarian leanings manifest themselves on public policy issues like affirmative action and education (school choice; schools competing for students, etc.). In my opinion, reverse discrimination is one of the biggest causes of racial animosity in America. Black Americans, in general, find nothing objectionable about skin color preferences that benefit them; whites are naturally resentful, just as blacks were when the government legally discriminated against them. To “right” that historical wrong, the government turned legal discrimination on its head. Whites are now the discriminees, as well as Asians, who were historically discriminated against, too.

Back to the point I was making about cognitive differences in a diverse society. Employment aptitude tests, college admissions exams, etc., are designed to measure some level of ability, and in general, certain groups score lower on these exams than others. Individuals vary, but there are marked differences among groups. This results in an unequal distribution of resources. If government hiring and admissions were predicated solely on test scores, we’d read about lawsuits being filed every hour. Discrimination claims, test bias claims would abound.

But in a society obsessed with the untenable idea of equal outcomes, the government tries to manipulate the outcome by judging blacks by a separate set of standards. As such, it becomes a self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling prophecy that blacks must always be judged by a separate set of standards. This seems to offend very few blacks.

Consequently, there is no incentive to raise scores and do what’s necessary to compete with all groups and be judged on the same standard, and the separate standard is ingrained. Yet we pretend there’s no such thing, convincing ourselves that affirmative action exists simply to ensure that whites or whoever makes the decisions don’t exclude us because we’re black.

So, whether you want to admit it or not, cognitive differences affect public policy. That is what makes such “dangerous” conversations about race and intelligence important. The genetic component of IQ is controversial because it implies that intelligence is fixed and reminds people of eugenics arguments, that certain races are genetically inferior to others. There is the temptation to attribute IQ differences to the environment so we can blame someone or something else for the deficiencies and demand solutions accordingly. Controversy also stems from the public policy implications of IQ differences, which almost always supports the politically conservative position. And Republicans, as we’re constantly reminded, are racists.

Before we get to the studies, let’s briefly review The Bell Curve, which presented analysis from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth conducted 12 years before the book. Authors Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein found that 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (an IQ test) went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, regardless of ethnic background. Lower scorers tended to end up on welfare.

They also noted that the average IQ for blacks was lower than Latinos, Whites, Asians, and American Jews, and also found that there are racial differences in IQ that can’t be explained by the environment. (Keep in mind that we can make predictions based on IQ; it doesn’t mean all the predictions come true.)

Since public policy is often designed to “fix” social problems and correct unfairness, policymakers need to consider that some problems or “unfairness” are not the fault of society at large or caused by discrimination but depends on the talents, drives, and motivations of individuals.

In my lay opinion, it is inconsistent and backward for a post-modern, post-Enlightenment society to ignore certain ideas, dismiss them without debate, and stifle the quest for knowledge about how human beings think. Regardless of the motivations of individuals, the desire to learn is a good thing. Don’t be afraid of it.

***

Pro

The following are three studies that acknowledge cognitive differences among groups and conclude, to varying degrees, that the differences affect outcomes and peformance. All but the first discuss the genetic component of cognitive ability:

1) Black-White Differences in Work Performance (2003) (PDF) — In what they refer to as the “largest meta-analysis to date of Black-White racial differences in job performance,” Patrick F. McKay and Michael A. McDaniel found that whites consistently outperform blacks on the job, although they qualify their conclusions. The degree of differences is moderated by several things, including “cognitive load.” They also found that cognitive differences between blacks and whites in highly complex jobs were smaller than in less complex jobs.

[Updated 8/10/06: For reasons unknown to me, I can't link to Patrick F. McKay's bio page anymore. I linked to the page because I think it's important for readers to know that blacks are involved in cognitive research, too. Here's screenshot of his page.]

This is probably the reason there’s no affirmative action for airplane pilots. Either you have a certain level of cognitive ability, regardless of skin color, or you’re eliminated. Does anyone object to that?

2) Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005) (PDF) — J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen conclude that there is some genetic component in mean IQ and that “culture-only” advocates bear the burden of proof. They point to studies that show twins raised apart are similar.

Regarding public policy implications, Rushton and Jensen contend that a “multifaceted approach to the policy implications of the hereditarian conclusion about mean Black-White differences is required.” In other words, their conclusions don’t affect certain policies such as equality under the law, but perhaps we need to rethink race preferences.

In theory, justice is blind, dispensed without regard to skin color. But practically, it is untenable as long as skin color considerations exist. It’s akin to the hypocrisy of slavery in a country founded on freedom. Yes, I know it was about freedom for white men only at the time, but we’re all free now, so I’m not complaining.

The authors cite The Bell Curve co-author Richard Herrnstein’s research on discrimination and distributional models of why racial groups differ in “socially valued outcomes.” In the discrimination model, it is assumed that unequal outcomes are the result of discrimination. Evidence of different performances is presumed to be evidence of discrimination. The distributional model takes into account “overlapping of the racial groups” and differences based on mean group characteristics, which includes IQ. The authors conclude public policy implications must be “tempered” by the distributional model.

Bottom line: we shouldn’t formulate policy with the assumption that unequal outcomes are the result of racial discrimination. Genetics, environment — whatever causes differences — does play a part in life outcomes, and these factors — and not just discrimination — ought to be considered.

Rushton is very controversial (aside from the obvious reason), and I’ll leave it to you to find out why. I cited his study because it’s one of the latest on IQ and race, provides an overview of research from the past 30 years, and cites Herrnstein’s discrimination and distributional models analysis, which I believe is right on the money.

3) In Social Consequences of Group Differences in Cognitive Ability (2004) (PDF), Linda S. Gottfredson writes:

What is intelligence? Can it be measured accurately and fairly? Why do individuals and groups differ in intelligence? And what does it matter if they do differ? These questions have been debate both inside and outside the field of intelligence since its founding a century ago. The debate has often been heated, all sides arguing with the passion of warriors battling against evil, injustice, and ignorance…The emotionality of this controversy illustrates the importance that people attribute to differences in intelligence.

Gottfredson, a professor and prolific research writer, discusses “multiple intelligences” and says that general intelligence, or g, is the “broadest and most fundamental,” and asks if it’s important outside test settings. The answer depends on whether scores on g-loaded tests predict “valued life outcomes.” Gottfredson concludes that they do:

Few scientists [Real academics, as a certain commenter will no doubt ask] today would deny IQ correlates with many important life outcomes. Their disagreement is why it does.

She provides a list of reasons why IQ correlates with life outcomes. There is a difference, by the way, between cause and correlation. Correlation is the relationship between two variables, such as…high income and low blood pressure. I’m making up this example, so go along with me. Let’s say that high income people tend to have low blood pressure. There is a relationship between the two, but we don’t know if the high income causes low blood pressure, or vice versa.

There is a measurable relationship between IQ and certain life outcomes, but IQ doesn’t cause certain life outcomes.

In a another study (PDF), Gottfredson contends that g is a “biological phenomenon, not a statistical artifact,” and g is a “strong predictor of standardized academic achievement.” General intelligence is the best single predictor of life outcomes, adding that it more strongly correlates with any other single trait or circumstance.

I encourage you to read the report for yourselves. Her findings present strong and persuasive arguments that cognitive differences exist among groups, and these differences have public policy implications. For example, in a section titled, “Within-Group Differences In g Create A Dilemma for Democracies and Between-Group Differences Intensify It,” Gottfredson says that racially diverse societies must deal with the conflict between equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

Affirmative action began as an effort to “cast a wide net” to reach minorities historically excluded from the mainstream. When social engineers didn’t get the results they wanted quickly enough, affirmative action evolved into a race-based entitlement. Forget the wide net. Hire this many blacks to make the quota, and don’t judge them under the same standards as whites. Affirmative action exists because of racial differences, not deliberate discrimination on the part of whites. Do you believe the Denver Fire Department deliberately discriminated against black applicants? They didn’t, but now they’re developing an “easier” test, which may or may not be an extremely risky move as far as competence is concerned, just so they won’t be accused of racism.

Back to Gottfredson. In the same section, she discusses other countries dealing with this issue and adds:

Equalizing learning opportunities never eradicates inequality of achievement, but always assures it. Conversely, equalizing outcomes across groups requires providing members of lower scoring groups more opportunities or assistance than members of higher scoring groups. That is, there is a trade-off between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. American schools are nonetheless expected to achieve both.

Government schools, already crappy, are expected to make everybody happy. The result is “inevitable failure and destructive cycles of blame.” That’s why I no longer support the No Child Left Behind law. Totally unworkable.

***

Con

I had a difficult time finding studies concluding that cognitive differences don’t exist. Most were opposing reactions to The Bell Curve, which is 12 years old.

1) (Link fixed!) This study, A Brief Analysis of ‘The Bell Curve’ (1996) (HTML cached copy), is a somewhat moderated analysis. Author Julian Paul Keenan touches on the usual “what is race” idea. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with the data; it’s the authors and their perceived motivations that are the sticking points.

2) Intelligence, Race, and Genetics (2005) (PDF) — Authors Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, and Kenneth K. Kidd flat-out assert that race is a “social construction with no scientific definition” and that because so many researchers disagree on what intelligence is, studies on race and intelligence serve no scientific ends. The study begins with a section on formal and informal theories of intelligence and a reluctant nod to “so-called g.” They attribute the construct of race to our human propensity to classify things. When we talk of race, the authors contend, we’re talking about attributes that correlate with geography. For example, the sickle-cell hemoglobin as protection against malaria is a geographic, not racial adaptation.

At the same time the authors acknowledge certain genetic predispositions, such as obesity. In light of my amateur correlation-causation explanation, what do you make of this:

One could pick any number of traits correlated with geographic patters and find correlations with other related straits. It would be foolhardy, however, to view any one of these traits as causative of the others. That is what people have done who have viewed differences in so-called races as somehow causative of differences in IQ.

As we’ve just read, Linda Gottredson understands the distinction just fine — I’m sure most researchers do — and doesn’t claim that certain traits cause others. Who are these “people” the authors refer to?

They also contend that classifying people by “race” is motivated by a desire for social stratification, which is why we don’t classify moths, for example, as being of different races (black and white) although they have different colors. “What we see in terms of skin colors,” they write, “correlates very well with our developed folk taxonomies but only weakly with genetic differentiations.”

Folk taxonomies are unscientific social classifications, or something like that. It’s just a different way of saying “There’s no such thing as race.”

The authors do a great job of discussing migration patterns, wide genetic differences among black Africans, (which they say are greater than among the rest of the world), group intermixing, and the origin of the idea of “race.” If you keep the politics out of it, it’s fascinating reading.

For a social science class.

By the time they get to the “Intelligence, Race, and Genetics” section, also the title of the paper, the notion that race doesn’t exist is lingering in your mind. Why regard the construct of intelligence with any seriousness when they’ve just explained race itself is a meaningless construct? In other words, we can’t even ask the question “What is the relationship between race and intelligence?” Pretty slick.

But are they merely playing semantics games, or do they acknowledge that there are distinct groups of people with observable and discernable differences, albeit with a lot of “crossover”? Let’s find out.

They discuss what “heritability” is: “the ratio of genetic variation to total variation in an attribute within a population.” Got that? Here’s an illustration from the study: occupational status is “associated with a statistically significant heritability coefficient” but it’s not directly under the control of genes. In plain speak, whether you work for a living and what kind of job you have, or whether you’re a bum has some genetic component. At least that’s how I interpret the gobble-de-gook.

The authors don’t dispute genetic differences between groups. For instance, they cited a study that showed IQs of adopted children are more similar to their biological mothers than adoptive mothers. Because there’s too much data pointing to the genetic nature and existence of a thing called intelligence, the authors must acknowledge it. Consequently, they spend a lot time maintaining there is no such thing as race, intelligence is ill-defined, etc.

Bottom line: Minus the nuance and alternate theories about race, there are observable and discernable differences between groups, which the authors refuse to call “races.” Some of the differences are environmental (cultural) and some are genetic. Public policy implications are not discussed.

3) Forgive me, but finding online (accessible) studies dismissing cognitive differences is proving fruitless. In that regard, I’m citing a Slate magazine article called The Bell Curve Flattened. It’s not a study, but the author provides analysis and cites case studies that purportedly “flatten” Herrnstein and Murray’s claims. I don’t agree with the author, but the article is a pretty good read.

***

The Wrap-up

As far as I know, I’ve never had my IQ tested (and it’s too late in the game to care anyway), but reading these studies made my head hurt. I’m no dummy, but it’s quite obvious the papers are intended for the consumption of other researchers.

As always, I encourage you to read the studies yourselves and don’t rely on my interpretations and assessments to formulate your opinions. If you think I’ve misread something or came to an erroneous conclusion, please discuss. I’ll update this post with more links and info later. If you’ve found other studies/articles pro and con, feel free to post the links. I want to explore what can/should be done about cognitive differences.

I gotta rest. :?

Other Pro and Con Sources:

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Previous post:

Next post: