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:
- Linda Gottfredson testified before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution on police quota-hiring in Nassau County, New York.
- Steve Sailer, whom some call a racist, cites a black liberal blogger’s reaction to the Army’s decision to lower standards and recruit applicants with low IQs.
- The Inequality Taboo
- Race and IQ (Sowell)
- Race and IQ, Part 2
- Race and IQ, Part 3
- The IQ Exemption (Williams)
- IQ Since “The Bell Curve”
- Cracked Bell
- More Bell Curve critiques
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 36 comments }
gnxp had a review recently of Richard Lynn’s ‘Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis’ which would seem to be relevant here
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php
Thanks for the link, Francis. The problem with intelligence research is that the researchers tend to be evolutionists.
I’ve always felt that if we can’t discuss topics such as these, we are doomed to repeat the injustices of prior generations regarding racial issues. Honest and open dialog has always proven to be the only way to solve society’s real issues.
With regards to the discussion of genetic differences between groups, Dinesh D’souza pretty much hit it on the nail when he says that a determination of genetic differences is an argument for affirmative action in that makes a certain group’s shortcomings unchangeable and thus almost mandates double standards. That is why female police officers will always have lower standards with regards to physical requirements, etc.
I think that the idea that it should be discussed as part of open and honest dialogue is really a nice way of saying that many want to openly express this without the pressure not to. My problem with it is this. For one, I have 3 black sons. I try hard to shelter them from from many things out there including the constant promotion of homosexuality, the ghetto thug mentality, secular/atheism rhetoric, etc. I really would prefer not to have to shelter them from the promotion of the notion that they have smaller brains or any kind of predisposition to be intellectually inferior.
A determination of intellectual inferiory is a determination of inferiority across the board. It is the human mind that enables humans to dominate the Earth. Even the greatest athlete is physically inferior to most animals. In essence, labeling any group as intellectually inferior is in essence labelling them as less human. And if one looks at physical competition as a whole, black people are not physically superior to whites (swimming, tennis, weightlifting, distance running compared to blacks of west African descent, wrestling, mixed martial arts, etc.). So determining black intellectual inferiority equates to overall inferiority, which I personally don’t accept.
@6
“I really would prefer not to have to shelter them from the promotion of the notion that they have smaller brains or any kind of predisposition to be intellectually inferior.”
Having 2 “Black sons” of my own and once being a “Black son” myself I can’t say I’ll be “sheltering” them from this information. It is some of the same information I heard growing up and I knew it did not determine my altitude. I will let them know the same. My mother never accepted me being at the bottom and that was the bottom line.
They’re going to know more Blacks often find their way to prison than college, so the information about IQ is nothing compared to that.
And as I’ve said previously, my own experience has shown me that people who work hard, smart and maintain good values do well. I’ve never seen a difference in that regard regardless of the skin tone of any individual.
The important thing children need to know is that nobody else determines what they will be. They hold it in their own hands and they must work to do it. Blacks that took the “twice as good” path were able to actually be better than their peers (I give no regard to race when I say peers). Blacks who are disciplined by involved parents always do well and carry the message to the next generation.
Hooray for La Shawn for opening up this subject! And my warmest support to Independent Conservative, who appears to read my thoughts. I’m not black, but have taught at middle and high school levels, and am proud to have two self-supporting and independent-thinking adult children whom I adore. Raising, disciplining, and educating them both morally and academically, was demanding for many years. But, that was my responsibility, just as for any parent who cares. Of course, genetics is a factor,but alone, it may not be enough.The early years are crucial, and the home is where it has to happen, or it probably won’t! Skin color or race is not a decisive factor: Mom and Dad hold the aces. Teachers can help, but can seldom overcome a lack of appreciation for learning. Stimulating those little minds to question and find answers, to notice and catalog the world around them, to recognize and manipulate colors, textures and shapes, and stretch their imaginations by reading to them and talking with them, is the special niche parents (and grandparents)can fill in the building of bright little children. They will then be enabled to maximize their intelligence potential.
#6- Shade:With regards to the discussion of genetic differences between groups, Dinesh D’souza pretty much hit it on the nail when he says that a determination of genetic differences is an argument for affirmative action in that makes a certain group’s shortcomings unchangeable and thus almost mandates double standards. That is why female police officers will always have lower standards with regards to physical requirements, etc.
Ironically, the authors of the Bell Curve and their supporters suggest the opposite argument. Since the differences are genetic and thus not subject to much change, then society must needs get rid of affirmative action and various compensatory programs like Head Start which make very little difference. As a consequence, the best we can do for certain groups is to phase out ineffective programs and provide them work commensurate with their lower IQs. That is one of the reasons for the ferocious almost hysterical response to the Bell Curve. It called into question a lot of programs to “help” blacks on grounds that seemed to denigrate blacks.
SHade further sez: I really would prefer not to have to shelter them from the promotion of the notion that they have smaller brains or any kind of predisposition to be intellectually inferior.â€
Agreed. Programs like AA make blacks vulnerable to such questions long after the enthusiasm of the eugenics movement has passed - and to having people dissect their mental capacity as if they were guinea pigs, and to have all this debate on whether they are “inferior” or not. This is one of the negative outcomes people like Lashawn have warned about- the lack of respect that follows when you base progress on things like affirmative action like so many black “leaders” and their white enablers have. Blacks will continually be subject to the stigma of lab rat treatment because of the grounds on which their leaders focus- compensatory policies like “affirmative action” and other government programs.
Notions of IQ determinism aren’t needed to demonstrate that things like Affirmative Action or Head Start are ineffective. They are ineffective on their own terms, and when similar programs are looked at internationally, as Thomas Sowell did, they are also ineffective in raising the general income and educational levels of the “poor” in whose name they are often invoked.
It should also be noted that long before such programs, various blacks, in various places held their own pretty well as far as IQ or educational performance is concerned, given the harsh Jim Crow era they had to survive in, and taking into account the general pattern ALL races show on IQ- low initial scores, rises over time. Black soldiers in WWI for example from various northern states outscored southern whites from various states on Army Intelligence tests, the same Army tests used in the Bell Curve’s data mix.
All black Dunbar High School for decades produced educational performance equal to or superior to surrounding local white schools. In short, there are enough examples in black history to show that things like AA are not needed for advancement. It hardly takes racial test score gaps to prove that.
Black kids should not have to put up with a barrage of research on their mental capacity, but sadly, decades after the high point of eugenics movement in the 1920s, this is still what happens. While others like Asians move ahead, we have made outselves vulnerable through such travesties as “affirmative action.”
Francis sez: gnxp had a review recently of Richard Lynn’s ‘Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis’ which would seem to be relevant here.
Richard Lyn has been a controversial character because of his research on race intelligence differences, head size etc. Nevertheless the pattern of racial differences in IQ is pretty clear, with Asians on top.
The article referenced fairly points out a number of holes in Lynn’s research as well as supporting data. Surprisingly Eskimos score almost as high on IQ as white people, which both threatens to demolish his theory in some aspects as well as confirm it. Does IQ have a genetic component? Of course. What we don’t know is the exact weight of that factor versus environmental factors that also play a part. Is the genetic component due to cold climate? Some data suggest yes, other data say no. Head size? Again the data is mixed. The basic point is that the field is in flux, with many unknowns about human intelligence. Sweeping claims as well as hysterical reactions are suspect in this area. Caution is required.
The data is solid as regards the existence of differences, but when the leap is made from that pattern to theories of IQ determinism and life chances etc then the enterprise becomes shaky.
As regards the Bell Curve for example, competent observers have not been able to replicate a number of its key claims, and the methods used are not only flawed but somewhat disingenuous- selectively omitting much data to the contrary of certain conclusions. See http://www.slate.com/id/2416 for example.
In addition as people like conservative author Thomas Sowell points out the racial gap is hardly startling. Various white ethnic groups have long showed a similar pattern, low initial scores with rises over time, and where regions are concerned, Southern Europeans have long had a scoring “gap” with Northern Europeans as big as or bigger than the black-white IQ score “gap”.
In fact, scores from a number of diaspora black communities such as certain Caribbean islands or in the US, are fairly close to scores from a number of Southern white Europeans, again starting low and rising over time. In short, IQ gaps are nothing new, and IQs change, not only for racial groups, but entire nations, a pattern that undermines notions of IQ determinism.
Irony abounds as regards IQ. Few whites a century ago, would have given much of a “Chinaman’s chance” that benighted Orientals would outscore whites on their own IQ measures, But in fact this is exactly what has happened. Lynn’s data for example shows Hong Kong Chinese some 6 IQ points ahead of Nordically pure Swedes, and some 8 points ahead of the white average. Ironically the exercise in many ways puts paid to claims of Aryan superiority.
Ironically, the authors of the Bell Curve and their supporters suggest the opposite argument.
True. D’souza made his statement in direct reference to that particular premise of The Bell Curve and in dispute of it.
The great physicist Richard P. Feynman once told a Cal Tech graduating class (and I’m paraphrasing here) that in order to do REAL science, you must make every effort to verify and substantiate the conclusions that you draw from your work — AND — every effort to explain any flaws or weaknesses in your work; that is, you must be forthright about problems that your work doesn’t solve and any known ways that it might be in error.
A tip of my hat to you, LaShawn, for wading into the cesspool of power and politics that surrounds our society’s understanding of race, finding some compelling academic work, and providing your own thoughtful, well-reasoned, and fair-minded analysis.
If only those in the realm of politics and education had the guts to do the same.
I think something is being missed. The assumption is that all intelligence can be reduced to one factor the G. This is obviously not true. Leaving race out of this, what was Mozart’s IQ or Beethoven. I am not black but it is obvious to me that there are different types of intelligence & all of them are not reducible to one factor. So somebody can be a genius and an idiot in 2 different fields.
Parvus
members of that racial group were formerly enslaved and discriminated against
An excellent case for redress can be made on moral grounds. If AA was designed to address this problem and was properly administered then it would likely not be such a lightning rod.
Consider that nearly 80% of Harvard’s black students are either immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean, or their children. The University of Chicago goes recruiting for Black students in Caribbean countries in order to boost its diversity numbers. Post 1965 voluntary immigrants are included under the umbrella of AA. The group is that most left behind are American blacks with pre-1965 family history.
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.
Situations like this can lead to perverse outcomes:
Stuart - Some research shows all intelligence in reduced to g. I linked to two Gottfredson studies that come to a different conclusion than yours. Did you read them? If so, what do you think is the flaw in her conclusion?
Asking about an individual’s IQ, I suspect, is not the most useful approach. Not all individuals have their IQs tested. And the point your making about Mozart’s or Beethoven’s IQs - if they were measured - is lost on me.
Enrique Cardova - You mentioned Dunbar High School. I assume you are talking about the famed Dunbar High in Baltimore Maryland. If you live there you probably also know that all Black Frederick Douglass high school used to also have a legacy of excellence.
Now both schools lag academically. Michael Steele is saying he wants to “save” Douglass high with help from Coppin State College: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.douglass02feb02,1,3777205.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines
The fact they “used to” do well proves the kids CAN do it. The kids were often poor then too. Drugs like heroin were in Black communities then like drugs are there today. But the overall culture has changed. You don’t need a high IQ to understand that
.
several outcroppings suggest the data is not as complete as we would like it to be. Individuals schools with (high) success rates. Geographical differences with contrasting differences (as in army solders). Geographical differences in IQ scores and results that suggest blacks from other parts of the world do better. High amounts of high scoring pupils being of one sex or another. It at least suggests that the axion from physics about observation changing the outcome may have some relevance. Adopted children losing the gains prior testing had shown infers the possibility that a “complex” of expecting to fail can be contagious. A critical mass dropping expected scores by talented individuals. It just does not “feel” (hate that phrase) as if enough data has been examined. Speaking of which, one of the great uses of intelligence towards promotion is the gift of being able to successfully put the blame on someone else. More often than we would like to acknowledge. We have not started to discuss if wisdom and intelligence are related.
Independent conserv sez:
The fact they “used to†do well proves the kids CAN do it. The kids were often poor then too. Drugs like heroin were in Black communities then like drugs are there today. But the overall culture has changed. You don’t need a high IQ to understand that
Absolutely. In some respects the culture is worse than under the yoke of Jim Crow. I was referencing Dunbar High School in Washington DC before it’s demise into just another ghetto school in the 1960s under assorted reorganizations, but you are correct. In his book “Black Education: Myths and Tragedies” Sowell lists several other schools, both public and private where black kids did as well as anybody. If you analyze the scores enough you see patterns of black success. The case of the black soliders from certain northern states has been already mentioned, but I wonder what would happen if you repeated the same analysis, and looked only at the scores of say northern blacks or northern blacks of West Indian descent in comparison with international scores of say white southern Europeans. I would not be surprised to see those scores a few points ahead of some southern Europeans, or even certain white aggregations in the US, particularly the black West Indians, who on some counts (third generation descendants) match the general white average in income and education.
General aggregates conceal a lot. Researcher Arthur Hu rounds up a lot of work in the field, and has some interesting breakdowns. http://www.arthurhu.com/index/aintell.htm. The general Asian average is 3-5 points ahead of whites, but take away all other Asians except Hong Kong Chinese and South Koreans and the Asian-White gap almost doubles. The general black average is 85-IQ, but northern urban black is about 6 points higher, around 91 which cuts the general black/white gap in half, and puts northern blacks about the same with white Irish, Greeks, etc, and ahead of mostly Caucasoid populations in places like Croatia, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Jews are supposed to be pretty smart, but Israeli scores are not that high, falling in the range of urban black scores (3 point diff), whereas Jews in the US generally have very good averages.
In jolly old England, “lesser breeds” like Indians and Chinese outperform native white pupils by solid margins, but Pakistanis and Bangladeshis often underachieve, even though their ethnicity is very close to that of Indians and they “all look alike” to outsiders. Sweeping claims of “Aryan” superiority generally fall flat in most data. If “Aryan” blood is all, the Asians should not be where they are, and neither should the northern blacks. But as noted earlier, the Asian picture is also mixed. As for the much ballyhooed 15 point black-white gap, such gaps are old news in a variety of places worldwide - for example the 15 point difference in IQ between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland reported by Thomas Sowell in “Race and Culture”. Depending on how you break the data down the whole field is in flux.
but Pakistanis and Bangladeshis often underachieve, even though their ethnicity is very close to that of Indians and they “all look alike†to outsiders.
If you look at the migration patterns of Indians compared to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis you see more selective immigration from India. More importantly, most Indian immigrants are not followers of Islam and don’t bring the cultural practices of cousin marriage with them to Britain:
There are probably a dozen or more well known studies which link cognition to the inbreeding depression seen in consanguinous marriages.
Ted Moore sez:
Geographical differences in IQ scores and results that suggest blacks from other parts of the world do better. High amounts of high scoring pupils being of one sex or another. It at least suggests that the axion from physics about observation changing the outcome may have some relevance. Adopted children losing the gains prior testing had shown infers the possibility that a “complex†of expecting to fail can be contagious. A critical mass dropping expected scores by talented individuals. It just does not “feel†(hate that phrase) as if enough data has been examined.
Fair enough. Much more balanced research is needed, but you appear to reference the shaky “stereotype threat” theory of negative expectations affecting performance. The main difficulty with this theory is that all it does is prove that some test takers do worse when you scare them. Absent the “stereotype threat”, that is when test takers were told merely that they were doing neutral research, the test score gap still remains. Telling test takers that say they are doing research on black inferiority of course did worsen black scores, but before any such suggestion was planted in their minds, the performance gap remained in place.
Some have extended the stereotype threat theory into a call for a “critical mass” of blacks that make for a nice atmosphere of solidarity when a lot of white people are around. Critical mass has also been used as a justification for campus “diversity” or affirmative action quotas. Sounds nice, but does the solidarity actually help black performance? No such evidence has emerged. What helps performance is good old fashioned individual effort and teaching, not “hanging with the homies”. If solidarity is so important why is black performance so dismal in mostly black schools without a lot of white people around? In fact, the research of Prof John Ogbu and John McWorther discussed sometime ago in LaShawn’s blog indicates just the opposite. Where a lot of blacks hang out together, academic performance tends to go DOWN, as the oppositional “acting white” phenomenon, or negative study habits and attitudes rear their head. Does this mean black folk need some white people around to learn something? Hardly. It means that there is no substitute for good attitude and effort. If “solidarity” is needed, then it should be in hard-nosed study groups helping one another, a not infrequent occurrence seen among Asian students. That’s the “critical mass” needed, not a black body count to promote internal solidarity or to serve as guinea pigs who supposedly bring a “diversity of perspectives” to campus. Why must black folk serve like walk-on extras in a bad movie for the benefit of white liberals?
Geographical differences in IQ scores and results show US blacks do better than blacks elsewhere. Black US scores are generally above those of blacks from other parts like Africa or the Caribbean, although in the US, they would also include the educational efforts of over 1 million black West Indians. Black scores in Britain and Canada are about the same as the US average. African counntry scores mostly fall below the US black average, some very low. Ironically, when Africans come to the US they are strongly represented in higher education attendance among blacks, reflecting the movement of immigrants with substantial levels of education and their descendants.
Some have posited “white blood” to be responsible for higher US black score levels, but this is a shaky notion.
Studies specifically looking at the issue (see Lynn above) are contradictory. Some find small positive influences, others none at all. Conservative writer Steve Sailer disputes the notion, holding that since blacks have only around a measly 18% white genes, the typical 20 point gap between continental African and US black scores is too big to be explained by the “white genes” thesis. Others point to Bell Curve data (http://www.sq.4mg.com/UsingSQ2.htm) that indicates that for those blacks at the genius level, persons of Caribbean and African descent are overrepresented, that is, populations with typically LESS white genetic material.
Hence the black braniacs (like African computer scientist Philip Emeagwali, or the first US black in space- astronaut, fighter pilot and aerospace engineer Guion Bluford) are dark skinned people, not the mulatto types as would be expected under the “white blood” thesis. The overrepresentation of Caribbean and African blacks (people with less white genes typically) at elite colleges, and the socio-economic gains of black West Indians, is also more indirect evidence against the “whitening” theory.
Agree that selective migration plays a part. The Indians may also be from more urbanized areas versus perhaps more rural Pakistanis which gives the Indians an advantage. No doubt the research out there breaks it down more. Also interesting point about the cousin marriages. It may well be something in the mix. Perhaps it is part and parcel of larger cultural practices which may hinder Pakistani students. Perhaps the Muslim faith also plays a part. Is there an oppositional culture among young Pakistanis in the UK to academic achievement?
Ind Conserv sez:
And as I’ve said previously, my own experience has shown me that people who work hard, smart and maintain good values do well. I’ve never seen a difference in that regard regardless of the skin tone of any individual. The important thing children need to know is that nobody else determines what they will be. They hold it in their own hands and they must work to do it. Blacks that took the “twice as good†path were able to actually be better than their peers (I give no regard to race when I say peers). Blacks who are disciplined by involved parents always do well and carry the message to the next generation.
Agreed. Lagging black performance which would include the lack of parental follow-through you indicate, actually gives many educators (I don’t blame all) the perfect excuse to waste time. Since genetics is holding these Negroes back it could be argued, using effective approaches (which usually involve more rigor) won’t make much difference. Better to warehouse the Negroes for a number of years, making money on their enrollment body counts, and use them as justification for a number of bureaucratic empires and comfortable program sinecures. It would be nice if educators actually concentrated on teaching black kids by the most effective means possible rather than trendy, ineffective things like “whole language”, “discovery” learning and “rain forest” math. If anything we need more testing of black kids to pinpoint weaknesses early, followed by hard-nosed targeting of extra help to raise performance. We can ill afford to waste more time, but this is precisely what is happening, as shown by the trendy and dubious “Investigations Math” Lawhawn talks about on another thread.
In fairness to educators, the flip side is also the cultural resistance LaShawn also brought up in another thread, namely the lack of effort and the oppositional mentality found among some blacks, the “acting white” phenomenon. Until both these areas are cleaned up, long term improvement is difficult. Personally I don’t believe in racial competitions per se. I don’t like to see “the performance gap” on the news every month, but “tough love” statistics are the only way to tell whether black kids are actually moving forward. We can’t trust the double tongues of the education establishment.
I really don’t care that some Asian guy 2 rows back is scoring 95% on all the tests. More power to the Asian guy. What I can’t stand is to see black kids scoring at 40% and failing to put out at least a decent effort, or the instructional nonsense like “whole” language or “discovery” math exacerbating an already difficult situation. Some may say, well, white and Asian kids also will be moving, they will not be standing still. I say fine. So be it. We don’t need every kid to be a braniac like Philip Emegawali or astronaut Guion Bluford. We just need them to be applying themselves and moving steadily forward, and we need effective instruction not travesties like “rainforest” math. That’s it. No heroes necessary, just strivers, like in the old days.
Black conseratives like Lashawn are disliked because they have the inconvenient habit of pointing out such things. At the same time they have to guard against assorted “Aryan” types on the flanks who are all too happy to exploit negative patterns and reports and pile on to denigrate blacks. It is a tough balancing act. That will not change anytime soon.
Just curious, does anyone think that some questions shouldn’t be asked? Not because of fear of the answer, but because we are not at a point where we can get a meaningful answer. Our understanding of genetics and the brain is still at such a basic level that these questions may simply not be addressable in an objective fashion with todays knowledge. Then, one is left with “studies” which cannot separate out the effects of culture and genetics, which can be interpreted based on the unconscious biases of the researcher.
We can’t find the truth unless we look for it. That seems to be what La Shawn wants to do, honestly enough that we actually try to find it. Must again say that I am impressed by those taking part in this. Another one of La Shawn’s blogs, Empty headed Education is a more direct challenge asking what we do for our children in the midst of a dire set of problems. Our children refers to others children as well, though I don’t know if we ever finish raising our kids. Its just that after some age they help raise us as well.
The genetic factor in intelligence is irrelevant. Assume it exists. (I have no doubt it does) Where do you go from there? Genetics are set once a child is conceived. They are then unchangeable. Is _every_ black child then presumed to be the same level of intelligence as the “average” level determined by some test? Certainly there may be an “average” intelligence level that is higher or lower (or the same as) than that of whites or asians. Does _every_ white child equal the average? Obviously not - some are higher, some are lower. So what have we gained? we know that some children are more intelligent than others. Duh. Some blacks are going to be more intelligent than other blacks, and more intelligent than some whites. Some blacks are going to be less so. Some whites are going to be more intelligent than other whites and more intelligent than some blacks. Some whites are going to be less so.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us back at the point where each individual is unique, and an education system should be designed to allow each individual to develop to his/her potential. Forget the genetics - unless you’re going to start a eugenics program that prohibits “dummies” from having children, you have to allow natural selection to take it’s course. Concentrate on changing what _can_ be changed - nurture. Culture within the black community and parenting. If - as has been stated - 70% of black children are now illegitimate, there is a tremendous population of children growing up with only one household parent. Somebody has to earn a living - who’s raising the children?
Regarding school choice and vouchers: I think one of the most racist things in the left’s ideology is the lack of support for school choice. If they REALLY cared about helping the poor and minorities, they’d be all for it. Instead, they’re beholden to the teachers’ union and related special interests. It’s one of the most blatantly, callously political issues out there. And it seems to me, from what I’ve read, that most poor and minorities WANT school choice and especially vouchers. Why wouldn’t they? Nobody wants their kids to go to an awful school.
I live in Mobile, AL, and EVERYONE who can afford to sends their kids to private or parochial schools. (Quite a few are easily within the means of the middle class, and they have scholarships for kids too.) I send my daughter to a private school, but my parents pay for it because none of us would even consider the idea of sending her to a local public elementary school. They are THAT bad. Not one meets minimum standards of teaching. This would be a perfect place for school vouchers, because as it is, only the least able go to the public schools, and their education suffers immensely because of it. They end up WAY behind, unless they are extraordinarily self-motivated and driven. Those kids just don’t get what they need from schools here.
So I don’t understand why some of the major groups such as the NAACP and others don’t get behind it, except for the fact that the Dummocratic Party owns them and gives them their marching orders. SOMEONE needs to start talking–YELLING–for something better. I’m glad you’ve started talking about that which so many dare not. (The silence is beyond stupid, but I guess with political correctness being the rule, everyone’s afraid to speak about anything that matters.)
What, if any, are the racial differences for the humanity-maintaining characteristics of compassion, sense of humor, honesty, persistence of effort, courage, hopefulness, self-respect, loyalty, fairness, altruism, and “common sense”?
What are the criteria, and whose are they, for valuing intellectual “IQ” vs “EHQ”, emotional health quotient, or “SQ”, soul quotient? Where would Buddha, Shankara, Gandhi, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, M.L. King Jr, and the millions of decent people who make this planet surface livable, score on the IQ, EHQ, and SQ scales?
What functional parts of the brain are being activated during IQ tests, and which parts are not being activated? Would races perform differently from one another if both emotional and intellectual brain ‘centers’ were being stimulated simultaneously by the IQ questions?
Resigned sez:
Just curious, does anyone think that some questions shouldn’t be asked? Not because of fear of the answer, but because we are not at a point where we can get a meaningful answer. Our understanding of genetics and the brain is still at such a basic level that these questions may simply not be addressable in an objective fashion with todays knowledge. Then, one is left with “studies†which cannot separate out the effects of culture and genetics, which can be interpreted based on the unconscious biases of the researcher.
Suex sez:
The genetic factor in intelligence is irrelevant. Assume it exists. (I have no doubt it does) Where do you go from there?
Fair questions, both. The whole Intelligence thing is extremely complex and needs caution not sweeping claims, certain slippery Bell Curve style methods or hysterical emotional reactions to rather mundane facts. Nevertheless there are a few reasons to continue research in the area of race and intelligence, BESIDES using it to charge or insinuate genetic inferiority as people on both sides of the fence seem to want to do. Far right types seek justification for the superiority of “Aryan” culture. Left wing types seek justification for imposing thought control in the name of black self esteem and/or justification for more gubment programs to “help” blacks. Both sides ironically work from the same basic premise- black inferiority. There is however a “third-way” research is needed:
1) The research tells us if black kids are making progress. We cannot rely on the soothing promises of the educational bureaucrats who all too often, are doing OTHER trendy things (like “whole” language) besides helping black kids read, write and compute effectively. Only hard data cuts through the BS. It is not necessary to turn every black kid into astronaut Guion Bluford or scientist Philip Emegawali. All they need to show is that they are making steady progress, as measured by hard objective data, not slippery educrat promises or manipulation of their own internal figures, another frequently used dodge.
2) Research helps us target assistance to black kids who need it early on. This assumes of course that the RIGHT things will be targeted, not “trend of the month” education. Dismal black scores on math for example, show where we need to get busy, and point the way to effective methods like direct instruction versus more fads like “rain forest” math. Of course targeting such help, puts more pressure on educators, and that is not welcome in many quarters. But that’s life faced by other people in the working world every day, from cops to waitresses. Nobody gave the black Buffalo soldiers in the Old West any breaks. They sometimes had to fight on 2 fronts every day, the enemy up front, and the one behind.
3)Research reveals patterns of black success. As noted above, when you break down the data various sub-groups of blacks are pretty much holding their own. We need more such clearly identifable sub-groups, like the black soldiers, West Indians and certain urban blacks mentioned earlier. They serve to prove blacks can cut the mustard just like everybody else, puncturing holes in theories on both right and left. It is not necessary that the entire black population somehow equal or surpass Asians at the top of the heap. What is necessary however is serious effort to produce strivers who will take it to the next level. Such effort is not as forthcoming as it should be. Too often the answer is “mo money” from the gubment. It is the gubment itself that is sometimes part of the problem.
4) Research shows that many blacks are not putting out the effort they are capable of. Even among middle-class blacks, as the research of Ogbu and McWorther show, there is a slackening off trend or poor attitude as regards academic work. In bigger perspective, the same trend holds. Black kids for example, watch many more hours of TV that other groups. A whole lot of time is being wasted unproductively. There is nothing more galling than to see a well situated son of some black doctor or solid civil servant kick back and waste time while others make excuses for him like “stereotype threat” and “racism”. It is galling to see lower class whites and Asians in some places produce better test scores than these comfortably ensconsed upper class blacks. The “Cosby criticism” is not only one way. Harsh as it is to say, the data indicates that too many people are not taking work, self-discipline and education seriously in the black community. Oh everyone TALKS a good game, but what does the data show, even among many of today’s middle and upper class youth? We know what needs to be done, and know in the past it was done in worse circumstances. Why the hell ain’t we doing it?
5) Research shows that sweeping claims of superiority by some groups often ring hollow at the bar of history. At the height of the eugenics movement “Aryan stock” was presumed to be the last word. IQ data offer a different perspective. It shows how history can reshuffle the deck over time. At one time the Chinese were the most technologically advanced on earth, and dismissed others as benighted “barbarians”. Then they fell by the wayside for centuries, the pitiful “sick men” of Asia. Ironically today, IQ scores (if that measure is used) of Chinese are among the highest of any group. History shuffles and reshuffles. The advantageous hand dealt today, may not exist down the road. It is a word of caution against sweeping claims based on race.
1) 2) 3) 4) have nothing to do with intelligence testing - they have to do with the effectiveness of teaching and the education system. Not that I disagree with them - just that they have nothing to do with intelligence testing. Otherwise, we’d just say “oh well, that child only tests xx on the IQ test - s/he can’t learn any more, so we’re ok to ‘babysit’ him/her during class hours. S/he will only be able to dig ditches anyway. Why waste effort? Not good, imo.
>>5) Research shows that sweeping claims of superiority by some groups often ring hollow at the bar of history. >>
This one is pointless. You’re right, of course, but it serves no purpose from two viewpoints: first, those who need most to hear it won’t believe it anyway; and second, intelligence of itself is worth nothing unless it’s channeled into a productive form - that means “taking work, self-discipline and education seriously”.
There are people who have “talent” to do a ’something’. There are people who do not have “talent” but have a desire to do the ’something’.
Initially, the “talented” person will do the ’something’ better, but without work, discipline and effort, the person who does not have the same talent but _is_ willing to apply themselves to the task at hand will surpass the person who has the “talent” but no will to work. It’s ideal to have both the “talent” _and_ the will to work, but of the two,if I can only have one characteristic, give me the person who has the will to work.
To the contrary, 1, 2, 3 and 4 DO have to do with intelligence testing, for they deal with baselines against which progress can be measured. Tests are also valuable in pinpointing weaknesses, towards which help can be addressed. They are also fair predictors (not perfect) of future performance in a variety of areas. Note: I did not say life in general, but specific areas like academic performance in college, or on certain jobs.
Item 4 may not deal specifically with testing, but it clearly enters the testing debate. A school of said debate holds that cultural factors, (or nurture if you will) plays a massive part in tested patterns, as opposed to another school which sees genetics as paramount. there are mixes in between, but either way you slice it, effort (or the lack thereof) has a clear bearing on the rationale, process and policies that are involved in testing.
Agree to the extent that number 5 is much more broadly based, and on a number of levels it will make little difference to people who won’t put out adequate effort. But I hesitate to write it off as pointless. In fact it is an excellent and ironic answer to those who continue to make such sweeping claims, or those who more quietly, behind closed doors and among friends, endorse the same, whether thy inhabit landscape on the left or right. Indeed I think it bears repeating, for much of the intelligence debate works off an assumption, stated explicitly or implied, of blacks as these special basket cases, when in fact their patterns have been similar to numerous other ethnic groups, whites included. The flip side is that it also calls into question pleas for preferential treatment like AA quotas.
As for the guy who produces versus the talented guy with “potential”, I agree. Give me the producer any day of the weeek.
>>To the contrary, 1, 2, 3 and 4 DO have to do with intelligence testing, for they deal with baselines against which progress can be measured.>>
Disagree. If in fact the testing actually measures intelligence, an individual isn’t going to change. Any changes are going to be due to a change in the population tested. Of course the possibility exists that you’re not measuring intelligence, you’re measuring something else.
>> Tests are also valuable in pinpointing weaknesses, towards which help can be addressed.>>
In no way do I disagree with the testing you recommend - I just disagree that it’s a means of measuring intelligence, or that if you actually _can_ measure intelligence that it would be of any use.
My comments about Mozart and Beethoven were a different way of saying that all intelligence can not be picked up on IQ If it did we would have 1000’s of Mozarts. We don’t. We seem to have established the Physicist as the standard of intelligence and measure IQ using that. Even tho that is not always accurate. I just saw that Richard Feynman never tested over 120. On the other hand this is a very interesting subject.
>>My comments about Mozart and Beethoven were a different way of saying that all intelligence can not be picked up on IQ>>
That’s silly. You’re saying that if an IQ test can’t pick up on musical talent, then it isn’t really an IQ test. You’re equating a particular talent with IQ. I have no idea how Van Gogh would do on an IQ test either, and I doubt his talent would be picked up by such a test. The IQ test is supposed to measure a particular talent which we call IQ - not other talents. If musical talent was in high demand, no doubt we’d develop some test to determine which individuals had greater natural talent than others. As it is, we leave it up to American Idol! (they probably wouldn’t pick up on Mozart or Beethoven either!!)
>>>If in fact the testing actually measures intelligence, an individual isn’t going to change. Any changes are going to be due to a change in the population tested. Of course the possibility exists that you’re not measuring intelligence, you’re measuring something else. >>>
Agree that other factors may be in the mix. There are always more factors that can be thrown into the hopper. The question is which ones stand out. Most who look fairly at IQ testing would agree that such tests only measure certain limited things in limited areas, namely specific domains of cognition–verbal fluency, say, or mathematical skill, spatial visualization or memory. The average of results from these areas yields the general factor, the well known “g”. These tests don’t attempt to take in the “total” person and indeed they can’t. No measuring instrument can. They are limited things. Nevertheless they do have a fair degree (again, not perfect) of predictive power in a range of areas, like academic performance or certain job performance. The data on this is pretty solid and consistent over several decades.
However the same data from IQ tests indicates that it is possible for the type of intelligence measured as expressed by “g”, to change over time. In fact the data disprove theories of “stagnant”, unchanging intelligence. Over time, entire ethnic groups and nations have raised their IQs. We can debate whether what IQs measure are “true” intelligence forever since no one is quite sure that we have captured ALL the variables that go into making up intelligence. We all know of Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” theory, so the possibilities are endless.
I have no problem with your point that individual intelligence, at SOME cognitive level, is unchanging. No one seems to know for sure what the level is. Nevertheless for that which IQ tests measure, which people commonly refer to as intelligence, it is not at all stagnant.Based on the earlier scores of these ethnic groups, deterministic theory supporters probably would have predicted little success for them in life, but in fact, they have proven just the opposite over time. Likewise people without any genetic differences can differ significantly in IQ, such as Northern versus southern Europeans, or even among identical twins as some studies show.
— To date, supporters of deterministic theories cannot adequately explain changes over time, nor can they show adequate explanation for weighing the data towards genetic determinism, when the same empirical data also shows significant environmental influence.
— In fact this is a primary criticism of the Bell Curve and its supporters, (aside from the usual hysterical charges of “racism”), that the authors too often avoid and evade contrary data on this matter, rather than deal forthrightly with it.
— Then there are the conceptual problems with such deterministic studies. hard-nosed conservative author Thomas Sowell is a personal friend of Bell Curve author Murray, and strongly supports part of his work, but even he had to say this about Bell Curve numbers:
“Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the authors’ uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the first things taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored facts in public policy research.”
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sowell.html
The danger is misuse of a limited instrument like IQ tests. On one side there may be used to make sweeping claims of superiority, inferiority, or life outcomes. On the flip side, the other danger is that the usefulness of tests and testing may be lost in waves of hysteria over racism, eugenics and other assorted isms.
My comments about Mozart and Beethoven were a different way of saying that all intelligence can not be picked up on IQ If it did we would have 1000’s of Mozarts. We don’t. We seem to have established the Physicist as the standard of intelligence and measure IQ using that. Even tho that is not always accurate. I just saw that Richard Feynman never tested over 120. On the other hand this is a very interesting subject.
Stuart’s argument is the same used by Howard Gardner in his Multiple Intelligences theory. Gardner does not believe that tests can usefully measure his list of intelligences. It is thus difficult to determine the degree multiple intelligences are independent of “g” or of each other.
Of course “nature” versus “nurture” is a complex mix. Even things that seem genetic are themselves shaped by environment. Some researches have for example focused on brain size. But brain size is in part dependent on environmental conditions, like diet and health. The exact “mix” is beyond anyone’s grasp at present. Why for example do Eskimos generally score close to or above several other white groups as shown in a majority of studies? According to some eugenics views, they should be low performing primitives compared to the many more sophiscated denizens of Europe. Again, while certain patterns as regards IQ tests are solid, and have been solid for decades, the data provides a cautionary note against sweeping claims based on race.
PS: I should add the data should ALSO make us skeptical of sweeping claims from the left wing side of the house invoking marching boot, sterilization camps for “lesser breeds”, and legions of low IQ minorities “trapped” forever in “dead end” jobs.
Intelligence testing and its results are not that dramatic. If it was so all-powerful, those considered “lesser breeds” 50-60 years ago, as measured by said results, would be frozen in place, and not be where they are now. Such testing shows certain patterns, which also occur WITHIN ethnic groups, which have shifted over time. It can also be valuable on a number of counts in measuring and predicting peformance. And yes, they leave and open up a whole host of unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions.
Black folk need not seethe in anger or cringe in fear at mention of the term “Intelligence test”. Nor should they allow assorted scaremongers to deny black kids the help they need by hindering or eliminating such testing in the name of “self-esteem”.
Lashawn sez:
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.
————————————
Agreed for the most part. Gottfredson is a solid researcher, and there is a definite reelationship between IQ and certain life outcomes such as school grades or performance on many jobs. These facts are indisputable. One question however arising about her work is in the “correlation is not causation” equation. There is a correlation, but her writing also continually emphasises the predictive aspect of IQ. Where academic and job performance is concerned the ground is solid, but when predictions branch off into things like marriage, divorce rates, etc, the ground becomes more unclear. Quote:
“Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person’s chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children.”
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
Below are some points to ponder:
1) The case of white differences raises questions. If IQ was so predictive how then does Gottfredson explain the relatively low divorce rates and relatively low out-of-wedlock rates by people with initially low IQ scores, like poor Italian or Jewish immigrants to the US? Scores of Asian immigrants like Japanese several decades ago also were not that impressive. Her approach would thus predict such things as high divorce and out-of-wedlock rates. But in fact this is not the case. Irish Americans immigrants for example meet all her criteria: low IQ= high OOW, divorce, substance abuse etc, but how to explain the more conservative pattern of Jewish or Italian immigrants, who registered below average scores on both military and civilian tests around WWI, just like the Irish? It could be said that poor Jews or Italians also showed some bad traits, but exactly how bad is bad and how does IQ play a role in degrees of badness? In other words, if there were more murders or drunkenness among the Irish versus the Jews, then IQ is the most predictive factor, or is it Irish culture?
2) Black patterns also raise questions about IQ’s predictive powers. That IQ has SOME predictive power is unmistakable, but when it comes to the social arena, the ground is more murky. Another factor enters the mix. Sowell shows that when black IQ scores were lower, blacks in fact had HIGHER rates of marriage, LOWER rates of divorce, and LOWER out-of-wedlock births than they do in today’s more prosperous, higher IQ times. And they did this while having to contend with the oppression of Jim Crow. Things began to fall apart after WWII on into the 60s, when ironically, thing were getting BETTER for black folk. Again, if IQ is the single most important predictor of cerain things, shouldn’t black progress on these points be getting BETTER as their scores go up, rather than getting WORSE?
3) IMHO, Gottfredson can show the correlation and SOME prediction, but the strength of her showing on causation or prediction raises a question mark. Is she in fact soley measuring IQ for the purposes of prediction or a number of OTHER cultural traits? In fact this same correlation question is one of the major weakness of the Bell Curve, which holds a roughly similar line of reasoning as Gottfredson. As a generally favorable Thomas Sowell notes:
“Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the authors’ uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the first things taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored facts in public policy research.” Again, much of Gottfredson’s work emphasizes IQ’s predictive power. It therefore seems fair to ask how she is separating out the effects of IQ from other cultural practices and attitudes that have a bearing on predicted negative behavior like OOW etc.
4)Another point to ponder is that Gottfredson does not seeem to adequately account for changes in IQ over time and its relationship to changes in predicted negative traits over time.
— As shown above, Jewish scores were once dismally below average, but over time they rose. Same goes for many other white ethnics, Asians AND blacks. This progress has been concealed, especially among blacks, by the practice of “norming” scores, the so-called Flynn effect, making IQs appear stagnant. When the scores are tabulated from their original baselines, in fact entire ethnic groups and nations have raised their IQs.
— If we take the low scores of the Jews some time back, then they should not be where they are, for the IQ scores would predict more negative socio-economic outcomes. Same for Asians. In none of the articles referenced does Gottfredson mention the Flynn effect, and its implications for her theory of IQ’s predictive power.
— It could be argued that as various groups rose economically, their IQs also rose, hence the negative predictions went down. But was it the IQ that brought down the negatives, or improved socio-economic conditions? Which came first?
———-
I am not scientific researcher but I am just throwing out some questions. Some possible responses are obvious. As said before Gottfredson’s work is solid but certain points are unclear on causation and prediction. Perhaps someone can shed more light on the subject.
>>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.>>
Don’t know if I’ll get around to reading it, but regardless of her findings, I would tend to disregard a group evaluation. There is likely to be greater variation within the group that there is between the groups.
Start messing with public policy based on this sort of thing and you’re just asking for trouble. As long as we all live in our society as it is, we all have to just muddle along. It doesn’t really matter what someone’s IQ is, what matters is how they live their life - what decisions they make. Retarded people aren’t going to do well on IQ tests - we treat them differently. Would you suggest we pigeon hole groups based on overall _averages_ of IQ? If she’s suggesting that _everybody_ be tested and we make decisions based on certain levels of IQ, I could consider it. But make policies based on the average of a _group_??? Absolutely out of the question, imo.
Comments on this entry are closed.