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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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!!)

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.

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.

>>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.

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.

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?

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.)