The article that sparked today's discussion was published at Politico by a man called Jason Richwine. I don't trust Richwine. He co-authored the ludicrous Heritage Foundation report about the supposed cost of immigration. Even worse, a thesis he wrote in college was then unearthed in which he made some racist suggestions about immigrants; he also wrote briefly for a "white nationalist" blog. The Politico article is his attempt to resurrect his reputation. In my opinion, he fails pretty miserably because he distorts what the problem was with his thesis: the problem wasn't that he discussed IQ, it was that he started suggesting that we keep Hispanics out because they have low IQs.
So why discuss his article? Well, before he starts spinning to defend his thesis, Richwine presents a credible set of facts that interest me. In particular, he notes that there is a huge disconnect between the scientific community and the media when it comes to the issue of IQ. He notes that if you listen to the media, you will hear that IQ is considered meaningless by the scientific community, that there are no ethnic and gender differences and those that do exist are the result of biased questions, and that no legitimate scientist really pays any attention to the whole idea. Science, however, has a different take. Indeed, Richwine notes that there IS a consensus in the cognitive ability field that:
● Virtually all psychologists believe there is an intelligence factor that explains the performance of individuals on cognitive tests, and IQ tests measure that factor.In other words, everything the media claims is false is actually true and media claims that the scientific community has reached a consensus that these things are false is backwards, as the consensus goes the other way. To prove the consensus, Richwine cites numerous books and studies and even a committee report by 52 experts from the American Psychological Association which noted the above; against these, he lines up quotes from hack journalists who say things like, “IQ is a metric of such dubiousness that almost no serious educational researcher uses it anymore.” (Ana Marie Cox -- The Guardian, May 2012).
● IQ scores correlate with educational attainment, income and other socioeconomic outcomes.
● A person's IQ score is influenced by their genetic make up and environmental factors. It tends to remain stable after adolescence.
● There is an observed difference in IQ scores among different racial/ethnic/gender groups, with northeast Asians scoring the highest, followed by whites, followed by Hispanics, followed by blacks.
● Psychologists have tested and rejected the notion that racial/gender differences are the result of biased testing. They have not, however, accepted the idea of a genetic cause for these differences because no link has yet been shown between DNA gene combinations and intelligence.
So let's forget Richwine and talk about the above bullet-points. These strike me as true. I know this in two ways. First, since at least the 1980s, leftists have struggled to disprove the above. The fact they keep struggling and have now gone into "it is heretical to say this" mode suggests it is true. Moreover, they've even gone so far as to remove testing questions from things like the SAT when minorities or women fared poorly on those questions, yet the differences persist despite these efforts to rig the tests. In my book, massive continuing statistical consistency is proof. Secondly, anecdotally, some of this is obvious. It is obvious there is an intelligence factor. It is obvious that some people are more intelligent than others. The people who seem more intelligent not only tend to do better in education and employment, but they score better on tests too. That suggests that intelligence is real, can be measured, and does impact our success. I can also say that I've met a ton of geniuses and quasi-geniuses and successful people, and they are disproportionately Asians and honkeys and male. Thus, it seems there are race/gender differences as well.
Now, I can't and won't say that this is 100% true because it's not; there are individuals in every group who are near the top or near the bottom of the human race. There are people who are well above average and well below average for their own groups and for other groups. But as groups, there appears to be noticeable differences which lead to different outcomes for the group average. I also cannot tell you if the difference is genetic, cultural or environmental. I doubt it is genetic though, or you would have consistency. In other words, if being purple made you stupid, then there would be no smart purples... but there are. Ergo, I think the race/gender differences are the result of something other than race or gender.
Why this matters to me is this: it exposes the left's thinking and that they don't care about people.
If we know that purples as a group will have lower IQs by the time they hit adulthood than blues, and we know that IQ will correlate with other measures of success, then in my opinion, we should be looking for the cause so we can find a solution to help purples do as well as blues. If there's something purple parents or purple teachers or purple celebrities are doing wrong, then we should find out what it is and fix it. If it's something blues are doing to purples, then we should find it and fix it. If it's environmental, perhaps pollution in purple neighborhoods, then we should fix it. This is true of blacks, Hispanics, whites, or anyone else who doesn't do as well as the top group. Indeed, when we find evidence of something that negatively affects a group of people, we should always investigate and find solutions.
But that's not what liberal journalists and educators do. Instead, they scream bloody racist murder at anyone who dares to suggest there is a difference. Then they go back into denial mode because that is their dogma. But what kind of people are we that we let whole groups of people get handicapped just to "prove" dogma?
Unfortunately, this seems to be getting worse too. The go-to solution these days is to demand that problems not be discussed for fear of hurting "acceptance." Everyone from race groups to gender groups to fat groups are taking this stance. How idiotic. It's like a demand that we let people fail lest we suggest that people who are failing just might be failing. I can't say this is unique. In fact, it's been pretty common throughout history, but it is unhelpful.
28 comments:
I agree. To assert that IQ doesn't exist or has no bearing flies in the face of the obvious. Likewise, I agree the real question is why is there a correlation between IQ, success, and certain groups? Like you, I don't know the answer, but that clearly is where researchers should be spending there time. As for why liberal journalists keep trying to deny it? Well, I don't know the answer to that either, but I suspect it has something to do with politics. Believing there is no correlation sounds good to the classes in question. "It's not my fault, I have a low IQ." It reminds me of that commercial with the actor playing an NFL wide receiver who says "we know it can't be my fault." People can delude themselves pretty easily if the facts get in the way of their agenda.
Two thoughts:
The first, I wonder whether anyone has tested a correlation b/w IQ and welfare. If so, do you think he'll turn up alive?
The second, are these data based on a global set? Or only American? If the latter, I would posit there may be some historical/genetic factors at play. Different ethnic groups have been subject to different rigors in this country. For example, it didn't do well for a black slave to be too intelligent in antebellum times. It's possible slavery brought aggressive genetic pressures on the black population affecting general IQ. Conversely, discrimination against Asians has at times manifested by only allowing the brightest, most educated of that group to enter here.
I don't mean to suggest that is the entire explanation, but it's certainly worth considering. The lesser disparity between whites and Hispanics, which are both in the middle so to speak, may offer clues about other factors.
Jed, This idea that there is no such thing as IQ or that it means nothing is one of those leftist talking points that doesn't pass the sniff test. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has ever met another human being.
Why they deny it, I think is all about their supposed anti-discrimination stance. If there are differences, then they fear that the public will consider discrimination justified. It's the same way they pretend that woman are just as strong or fast as men in combat... because if they aren't, then it might justify discrimination.
The problem is that in this case, they are basically perpetuating a harm by denying that there is a difference.
tryanmax, I suspect if anyone has done that research, we would know as there would have been an active campaign to have them put the death.
I'm not sure about the second point, as he's talking in a more generic sense about consensus and he doesn't describe the data set the people doing the studies relied upon. If it is country-specific, then there probably are unique circumstances to consider, such as discrimination faced and who immigrated compared to who stayed behind, etc.
At this point though, I tend to discount a genetic answer because I see too much variance, even within families, where the genetics should be fairly similar. I suspect the differences are probably explained by culture, by education level of the parents, and by individual effort.
Imagine how high whites would score if we didn't include West Virginia.
LOL! Ah yup. And they aren't alone. :P
Actually, one of the fascinating things about the US is that we vary so much from location to location, group to group. You don't see that in other countries where everything is pretty uniform. Here, the statistics are skewed by bad states, inner cities, etc.
If you exclude inner cities for example, our health statistics and crime statistics skyrocket past the best European countries. If you exclude certain southern states (or inner cities again), our education system is the best in the world. If you exclude the poorest states, the rest of the country is the richest in the world.
So when people say, "Look how bad it is in America," they are missing the fact that there are two Americas -- one blows the world away in every good way, the other is mired in third world performance. Rather than ignoring this type of stuff, we should focus on it and work to improve the areas that are lagging. Unfortunately, it's often taboo to point this out.
I doubt it is genetic though, or you would have consistency.
There is consistency in the statistical means. The standard deviations can be accounted for by education, gene combinatorics (mixing), diet and amongst other things parental culture. So it's a combination of nature vs nurture - which just happens to be the subject of the long time argument between the nurture only Marxists and the nature only Fascists, with everyone else stuck in the middle someplace.
As for why liberal journalists keep trying to deny it?
Since cypto Marxists couldn't just shoot their intellectual opponents in the west - which would have saved lots of time,btw - they instead occupied the universities and implemented post modern analysis. Basically, objective reality is subordinated to whatever a priori knowledge which gets the job of implementing human equality done. You just refuse to entertain any other ideas than say, women are equivalent to men in all aspects or that all differences between races are due to oppression of one race over another. Those who hold an opposing "theory", even if there is huge evidence for same, are to be dealt with as representatives of the oppressors and silenced by any means necessary.
K, I think that's true that it's a combination of things. But when we talk genes, I think it means individual genes, not some sort of race/gender gene. If race or gender were itself a factor, then you wouldn't have outliers. In other words, purples would max out below the best blues. Since that doesn't happen, I think "genetic" really means "specific genes you got from your family."
And in that regard, unless you are talking real outliers -- geniuses or retarded people -- then I think nurture plays the much bigger role.
On your analysis of crypto Marxists, sadly, I must agree. That's what I've seen too, that they demand conformity to dogma no matter how obvious the reality.
Does anyone remember famous liberal Thomas Sowell's critique of the Bell Curve? I haven't been able to find the full text, but I have found large excerpts.
-----------
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/000792.html
While The Bell Curve cites the work of James R. Flynn, who found substantial increases in mental test performances from one generation to the next in a number of countries around the world, the authors seem not to acknowledge the devastating implications of that finding for the genetic theory of intergroup differences, or for their own reiteration of long-standing claims that the higher fertility of low-IQ groups implies a declining national IQ level. This latter claim is indeed logically consistent with the assumption that genetics is a major factor in interracial differences in IQ scores. But ultimately this too is an empirical issue--and empirical evidence has likewise refuted the claim that IQ test performance would decline over time.
Even before Professor Flynn's studies, mental test results from American soldiers tested in World War II showed that their performances on these tests were higher than the performances of American soldiers in World War I by the equivalent of about 12 IQ points. Perhaps the most dramatic changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among American soldiers born in Russia--the great majority of whom were Jews--showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." Within a decade, however, Jews in the United States were scoring above the national average on mental tests, and the data in The Bell Curve indicate that they are now far above the national average in IQ.
Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence. " It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results--during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews.
-----
A bit later is the same essay he also observed that.
---------
A remarkable phenomenon commented on in the Moynihan report of thirty years ago goes unnoticed in The Bell Curve--the prevalence of females among blacks who score high on mental tests. Others who have done studies of high- IQ blacks have found several times as many females as males above the 120 IQ level. Since black males and black females have the same genetic inheritance, this substantial disparity must have some other roots, especially since it is not found in studies of high-IQ individuals in the general society, such as the famous Terman studies, which followed high-IQ children into adulthood and later life. If IQ differences of this magnitude can occur with no genetic difference at all, then it is more than mere speculation to say that some unusual environmental effects must be at work among blacks. However, these environmental effects need not be limited to blacks, for other low-IQ groups of European or other ancestries have likewise tended to have females over-represented among their higher scorers, even though the Terman studies of the general population found no such patterns.
-------
Just to be clear, there is a lot more text at the link.
Andrew....Reminds me again of Asimov's 'Harry Seldon's psychohistory, where you can predict populations movement but not individual actions within that movement.
Secondly.....can anyone define intelligence? Financial success? Political success? Educational achievement? Communication skills? Social skills? Math? Science? Or is it one of these "I know it when I see it" definitions?
I look at it like these "smartest person" claims. "She/He has the highest IQ ever reported? Also, what about idiot savants, like in "Rain Man?" There are people like that out there who are amazing in one narrow skill, but deficient in all others. Are they "geniuses?"
Many time it just seems to be a measure that we use to feel good about ourselves. "I have a higher IQ than you?!"
"A person's IQ score is influenced by their genetic make up and environmental factors. It tends to remain stable after adolescence."
:
Environment is the key here. Roughly 40% of Blacks have been on Welfare a staggering statistic that has remained so since the Great Society was implemented. Yet there are roughly the same number of whites on welfare as blacks.
:
So my first question is why are we looking at race when it would seem that socioeconomics would have a greater impact on the IQ of young devloping minds? If you looked into a pit and you saw a bunch of toy dogs living in squalor fighting each other over scaps and wanted to understand why this was so whould your first question be what color is the pelt?
:
Secondly if you want to truly identify genetic preferences for intelligence why again would you base this on race. Sure black people look different than white people but the melanin in the skin is not even a different pigment. The control over how much melanin is in the skin is probably a very minor genetic differences and other differences such as a propensity to sicle cell anemia as a defence against malaria are purely physiological in nature.
:
Want a true genetic marker for segregating people, why not try Blood Type? Blood Tyoe is defined by the addition or lack of protein molecules in the hemoglobin. Everyone has on O, some people have an A, some a B and some both. It is documented that these proteins because the regulate how every cell in the body gets nutrients and oxygen affect many genetic factors from immunity to deseases, propensity to fight off cancer and even to how the brain may be organized to solve problems.
:
Yet I have not seen one study telling me whether Type A's are smarther than Type O's or vice versa. Why is that?
Ironically, if the Left did acknowledge the differences in IQ scores, it might be helpful to them, because then they could proclaim a crisis of intelligence among minorities and demand government action to fix it. But that would mean implying that blacks aren't as smart as whites, so they definitely can't do that, because they mustn't look like racists.
Anthony, I don't recall that specifically, but it is interesting. Personally, I suspect that it's like most thing dealing with humans: genetics gives you a boost or a drag and makes you pre-disposed toward something... the rest is up to you and the environment in which you are raised.
In either event though, I think these differences are real and are worth study and I think it's rather asinine for leftists to claim they care about these people and then refuse to allow people study things that might help them.
Patriot, That's exactly what it is -- these are broad trends... group averages. They can't predict anything about a single person. But by studying the averages and examining factors that might have caused it, you can help guide people to eliminating negative influences and adding positive influences.
Defining "success" or "smarter" in a vacuum is impossible because they are relative terms that include different value judgements. Humans simply don't see the world the same way.
But that said, the answer is yes.
It's easy to tell when you meet someone who is smart and someone who is dumb. When you meet people who are truly brilliant, they stand out. They are both well-informed, capable of connecting dots correctly, and perceptive. When you meet people who are truly successful, they stand out too... they are people who simply excel beyond everyone else at the things they do.
And while there are some people who are savants at one thing but idiotic at others, they are rare. Most of the geniuses, near geniuses and plain old smart people are intelligent across the board. Whereas dumb people may be good at something basic, but they are rarely capable once you get outside that area of limited expertise.
Moreover, this "I know it when I see it" also does show up in measurable ways. It shows up as a track record of consistently high (1) test scores, particularly IQ and standardized testing, (2) grades, (3) promotion/firing results, and as the (4) ability to develop a financial base that protects the person from economic shocks.
As an aside, this idea (currently popular on the right, formerly popular on the left) that "the common man" (read: uneducated and typically working in a manual labor field) is really smarter than "intellectuals" (read: educated people who work in fields requiring mental effort rather than physical) is a myth, told by communists and populists to give their supporters a false moral claim to being better than people who have more than them and who have shown a proven record of excelling.
Indi, In terms of why you would look at race, that's not my point. What I'm pointing out is that the media refuses to allow that there are difference. To the contrary, they even reject the idea that you can measure differences. That's the problem.
In terms of why you study race, the issue with race is that race seems to work as a proxy for something else here. In other words, while I agree that race itself is not a cause of IQ differences, something about the way the different races exist in the country is causing a difference. Thus, science should break down what those differences could be and study which ones negatively or positively influence IQ. It may turn out to be diet, pollution, parental behavior, celebrity behavior, something in the education path, etc. Once you know that, then you can work on solutions.
That's why race matters, not because "race" matters, but because race has highlighted something that does matter. But the problem is that the media refuses to let people discuss this to solve it because they don't want anyone admitting that there are differences.
As for why blood type hasn't been studied, I don't know that it hasn't, but it sounds like something that should be studied, doesn't it?
In fact, on that point, they're finding that body fat is connected to mental deterioration as you age. So body chemistry may be vital to intelligence too.
But again, you have accept that intelligence is real and let people talk about it before you can study it.
T-Rav, It's a real Catch-22. LOL! But that's the problem with dogma. When it is sacrosanct that X and Y are identical, then you can't study the differences. If you can't study the differences or accommodate for them), then you can't help X or Y if those differences are bad.
Anthony: Sowell rocks.
Personally, though, I'd rather not "argue by study" and take a more global approach. IMO, racial IQ theories become irrelevant and meaningless in the case where one ignores all assumed racial group differences and simply accepts humanity as individual brothers, all of whom differ from each other with a pleasing variety.
It is a challenge to maintain that position, however, while in a sea of disinformation generated by political power brokers using sex, race, wealth etc as levers for rule.
... while I agree that race itself is not a cause of IQ differences, something about the way the different races exist in the country is causing a difference.
That ties into what I was trying to say. Not that there is a direct racial link to IQ based on genetics, but that whatever genetic links exist may be over- or under-represented in various racial populations due to other "sorting" factors.
e.g. "We'll take all the blues, but only the smart purples and only the dumb greens." The selection process creates false ties between unlinked traits in the resultant population. If the resultant population(s) segregate, a lingering effect is produced.
Again, this isn't to discount environmental factors in any way. Nor is it meant to suggest that improvement is impossible. In fact, I am more inclined to believe that the genetic component doesn't dictate a top end so much as it may determine a baseline.
I also think it is well past time we get story-problems out of textbooks that begin, "A Klansman has 20 feet of rope..." :-P
OT: Here's an interesting issue. Obama is delaying the out-of-pocket expenses cap on Obamacare for one year. That means that an Obamacare policy is effectively worthless since you can still be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.
Clearly, he is trying to keep the rates down in 2015, but this isn't going to help -- it's going to keep people from signing up if their deductible is too high.
Anthony, I think the problem with that approach is the lack of problem-solving it entails. There are race/ethnic/gender differences and if you ignore those, then you can't spot problems that may (or may not) be solvable. I think the better approach is to let science do it's think and everyone just not get upset about it.
Andrew
I understand your point. You look at race because everyone wants to deny any differences that might suggest people of different races are different especially if you can equate a comparison to it.
:
My point is that in statistics a high correlation between data sets does not indicate a cause effect relationship.
:
Let's say for argument that there is a 5 point measurable difference in the manual dexterity needed to knit wool sweaters between black women and white women (either one can be higher as you like does not matter to the argument). Let us suppose that the the difference is in such a high correlation that it can't be denied so unless you ignore the facts as liberals are want to do then you have to admit that one group knits better for whatever reason.
:
Now it we then state this is evidence that blacks and whites have different knitting capabilities we have fallen into the statistics trap. This is because the data is meaningless until you can identify why the causal relationship exists. It could be some other factor that happens to correlate with race that has nothing to do with racial genetic makeup. such as one group being fascinated with state fairs and the other not for instance.
:
We can state race this and race that and this statistic there and that correlation over there till we are blue in the face but until you can state a reason why the genetic makeup of one group shows a proclivity to one thing and not another you really don't know anything.
:
There is a classic example of the study of the introduction of Christianity in Hawaii coinciding at a 90% confidence level with rapes occurring in the native Islander population. Turns out however that this had more to do with urbanization and better police procedures indicating rapes were reported which just happened to increase at the same rate that Christians moved into the Island.
:
This is my point. Unless you can state why race plays a factor then it becomes a red herring to study it. And given the sensitivity to the subject I think studies like "youth who listen to rap music that tell kids to drop out of school and become pimps and drug dealers lowers overall IQ levels among the listening audience might be better approaches.
:
But as you correctly state that does not matter because the left will automatically associate the above statement with race even if we do not. They will then disparage us from studying it even though the correct assumption may probably be to tell the youth to stay in school. This is the problem with looking at these things through race colored spectacles.
tryanmax, Where did you go to school? LOL!
Anyway, I think that genetics is essentially a baseline as well. It is where you start and it dictates how easy or hard it will be for you to go from there. But after that, it's all about what you are taught and how driven you are to embrace it.
It is no surprise to me that other kids I knew growing up whose parents didn't care about their education are today morons who work at minimum wage jobs. It wasn't that they weren't capable, but they were taught not to develop their minds, so they didn't. And the end result is pizza delivery at the age of 40.
In terms of selection, I think it's again more cultural than genetic. West Virginia was a good example of this. There was nothing wrong with the people there genetically. In fact, they turned out some bright people now and then. But the people with motivation fled the area, leaving a culture that told people that welfare, lazy union labor, and failure were "the norm."
But Indi, that is my point. We do see a correlation, but we don't know what is causing that... so we should study it to discover what is causing it.
In doing so, you will (1) rule out race/gender as the cause and (2) find what is the cause and thereby let people adjust their behavior accordingly.
Ignoring the difference leaves you with no baseline even to begin. In other words, we don't even know there are better knitters if we don't recognize the fact that we have found a difference that appears to be correlated to race. That's how science begins. You see a correlation. Now you study it to see if that's true or if there is something else causing it. Then you follow up on that until you understand it.
If you ignore the correlation, then you (1) don't have a place to start looking and (2) won't know when you've solved the problem. Suppose rap music accounts for 14% of it. Once you solve the rap music issue, do you pat yourself on the back? If you don't recognize the broader issue, you won't know that you missed 86% of it.
Alternatively, you are just pretending the correlation that got you started doesn't exist. Take the rap music example. Implicit in that is that black kids are failing and they listen to rap. Otherwise, why study rap if you didn't know that black kids were failing and that is what you are trying to solve?
Moreover, if a huge percentage of black kids are failing and whites aren't, then you want to hit the problem head on and find out why black kids are failing. You don't solve the problem by randomly studying other things. You go to the source and start ruling out suspected causes and then you march down the line until you find them all...
Race... No. Move on.
Indifferent parents. Major effect. Keep going.
Diet... Minor effect. Keep going.
Rap music... Medium effect. Keep going.
Athletes calling school stupid. Minor effect. Keep going.
...
...
...until you stop finding causes and the entire correlation can be explained.
Andrew, ultimately I agree, if there is any genetic variance on IQ, it is probably obliterated by the background noise generated by the diversity of cultural/environmental factors.
tryanmax, I think so. All men are created equal, but about a minute after birth everything changes.
Andrew,
I'm fine with scientists studying whatever. I don't think for a second useful policy prescriptions will come out of such studies, but tying science to useful policy prescriptions would be shortsighted.
Anthony, I'm not a fan of letting science dictate policy either, but I see it as necessary to enlighten the debate.
For example, if they discover that the problem is that parents who feed their kids fried food before the age of 7, then it would be up to the political process to decide what the solution would be. Science could also rule out other things that people may wrongly believe. Again, it would then be up to the political process to decide what changes are needed, if any.
Science, in my book, is about finding answers to problems. What you do with those answers is up to the political process or people individually.
Post a Comment