Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[Jono]

Then let us see the research papers, get us the data and don't just assert it, there is a plethora of research on it.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I noted on the fact that the differences between racial groups on standardised intelligence tests are commonly and continously observed. This is not where the controversy rests.

 

[Jono]

No, of course not. So if I was studying how different 'races' react to certain biological agents, you would have no objection?

Well we have alot of research of how various groups react differently to substances, and hence we've been able to develop medicines (and understanding of why certain groups are more prone to diabetes than others) tailored more precisely to the needs of ecotypical clusters.

I am only doing pure research for no particular reason, you understand - and I would be shocked if someone tried to apply my findings to a race specific bio-weapon.

I found this bit on that issue, which is understandably controversial as something to do with "weaponizing" anything tends to be.

No, of course not. Otherwise, why would research show that Jews have higher intelligence than whites? We know it must be genetic because Jews have deliberately avoided breeding with whites in order to keep their race pure. Genetics is obviously the sole reason for the Jew's cunning nature, and no way could 'social constructs' have anything to do with it.

Similarly, the markedly lower intelligence of African Americans has nothing to do with their long history of being treated as less than human, and skin color is just a convenient marker. The actual genes responsible their lower cognitive abilities have not yet been identified, but we have no doubt that these genes will be unique to the black race - scientific proof of their inherent inferiority.

I can't agree with the above treatment of the issue.

 

[Jono]

What would be a case where you'd have to "discriminate" or select based on race?

There are plenty of cases where it is sensible to do so, and even necessary (allthough the term 'discriminate' should perhaps remain within quotation marks, due to its overall negative ring). Apart from more mundane cases, such as casting a specific character in a movie, or a play, I mentioned a more crucial example in this post.

You said:

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. It merely means that the potential implications on research highlighting aspects of human nature as being either notably innate or not can have both positive as well as negative impacts. A concern for many is the fear that scientific results might "justify" some racial stereotypes and people would be understandably worried that it would therefore justify discrimination of an individual simply because of his racial group. On this note I'd like to, yet again, quote Pinker:

So could discoveries in biology turn out to justify racism and sexism? Absolutely not! The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups to which the individual belongs... Here is where the distinction between innate variation and innate universals is crucial. Regardless of IQ or physical strength or any other trait that can vary, all humans can be assumed to have certain traits in common. No one likes being enslaved. No one likes being humiliated. No one likes being treated unfairly, that is, according to traits that the person cannot control. The revulsion we feel toward discrimination and slavery comes from a conviction that however much people vary on some traits, they do not vary on these. This conviction contrasts, by the way, with the supposedly progressive doctrine that people have no inherent concerns, which implies that they could be conditioned to enjoy servitude or degradation.

('Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature' p. 145)

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I noted on the fact that the differences between racial groups on standardised intelligence tests are commonly and continously observed. This is not where the controversy rests.

He may have thought you were talking about allelic variation related to intelligence being unevenly distributed since you were responding to my post. I recognized immediately that you were probably mistaking that for IQ tests which I wasn't talking about. There is no scientific basis for supposing that the genes related to intelligence are distributed in a way that creates a deficiency in intelligence for any given continental population. The observed genetic variation within the human species indicates that the allelic variation related to a polygenic trait like intelligence would be continuous across populations.

In the end, the data that the psychometricians rely on to demonstrate racial difference in intelligence are simply the racial differences we already observe. William Shockley, for example, proposed that skin color was the metric by which we could measure intelligence. This despite no established physiological link between the loci that determine skin pigmentation and those that determine any aspect of mental functioning. Nor have the psychometricians been able to advance any credible evolutionary genetic mechanism to explain the origin of the consistent racial differences.

We know that genetic differences among populations are created by the combined action of natural selection and genetic drift. The selection clines involved in producing human genetic variation differ independently from one another. There is no reason to suppose that these differences should have produced intellectual inferiority only in sub-Saharan Africans. Genetic drift cannot be invoked either, since drift events are random, and thus allelic variation related to intelligence that results from drift should also be scattered throughout human populations, as the case of the B allele illustrates.

Thus to explain the consistency of inferior IQs in sub-Saharan Africans, one would have to suppose some form of natural selection that was operating only on these populations. J. Philippe Rushton attempts to accomplish this by utilizing an r- and K-selection scenario to explain the life history features of the three major races. Briefly, he argues that the human races fall on the r- and K-continuum. The theory of r- and K-selection was devised in the late 1970s to address why some species had short lives and reproduced slowly. Examples of organisms on different ends of the scale would be weeds which grow rapidly, but invest little in their bodily structures (r-selected) and trees, which grow slowly and invest large amounts in their structures (K-selected).

According to Rushton's view of the human races, Negroids are considered "weeds," with high investments in reproduction, and thus less to invest in bodily structures such as brain mass, thereby having lower intelligence. Alternatively, Caucasoids and Asians are more "treelike," with high investments in brain mass and thus greater intellect, and lower inputs to reproduction. I have examined his scenario and have argued that he fails.¹⁵ This failure results from both an improper use of life history theory and a flawed analysis of the available data.

The psychometric argument gets weaker when we examine the genetic variability within the human species, particularly the greater within-group than between-group variation. On solely genetic grounds one would expect these racial groups to be indistinguishable for a complex behavioral trait like intelligence. Indeed, even if intelligence were highly heritable, the establishment of differences in intellectual capacity among family groups within a supposed race would not mean that there would be differences among races. The argument for consistent genetic differentiation for IQ among races suffers from all of the points that I have raised. Each alone is a fatal error, and when taken together they invalidate the racist program of Shockley and his co-conspirators.


Source: The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at The Millennium chapter 10 The Race and IQ Fallacy p. 168-170

 

[Jono]

The observed genetic variation within the human species indicates that the allelic variation related to a polygenic trait like intelligence would be continuous across populations.

The thing is that even if we know intelligence is to a degree one of our hereditarian traits, we do not know all of the neurological gadgets which specifically give us so and so level of intelligence or otherwise cognitive abilities, apart from some less specific commonalities. So, we have a problem making claims about attaching any allelic variation related to intelligence, again apart from noting on variance within groups as well as inbetween groups. Graves is correct on noting that one might be trying to arrive at a conclusion based on a too large a canvas. E.g, for sub-group X and group Y and sub-group B, observed differences (while gap is steadily comparable through minor fluctations) might theoretically be there for very different reasons. For example, while I do not recall which studies made the observation, we've found quite a few notably different clusters in Africa who, while not only with a marked genetic difference, had a half SD deviation though observed enviromental differences were very comparable. Now, we do not know if such a difference would necessarily be only genetic, but I see no reason to completely reject a partial hereditarian basis. Likewise, this is why I tend to reject the "either or" case-scenario so often proposed by one or the other at the end extremes of this particular debate. For research and reasons I've listed earlier in our discussion, I think there is something to the almost ever present and observed hereditarian basis, but however large or small is certainly not possible to gaze upon correctly at the moment (imo).

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Graves and other experts on evolutionary genetics reject the hereditarian hypothesis based on genetic reasoning as was explained in the previous post.

There's no reason to suppose that human populations are differentiated in the allelic variation related to intelligence therefore the inquiry in to the possibility by psychometricians is based on a fallacy. All that the consistent reporting on inequality in average IQ between groups tells us is that there are consistent differences in environmental variables that impact the nurturing of intelligence.

I don't see this debate as one between two opposite extremes, just opposing viewpoints. The hereditarian side relies on a partial genetic basis as an explanation for IQ score variation. I don't feel it makes a difference whether one takes a strong hereditarian position or a more moderate one as we're still talking about a genetic factor. The debate over how heritable the difference between population groups is is reminiscent of the saying that someone can be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't. Genetics is either a factor or it isn't.

If the genetic hypothesis is based on a fallacy then it is simply false and that leaves us with the environmental position that intelligence, while highly heritable, is not differentiated unevenly across geographic populations and the average IQ score variation, while highly correlated with life outcomes, is malleable which means that it can be changed with the right social reform which is an ongoing struggle for policy makers and individuals alike.

 

[Jono]

Graves and other experts on evolutionary genetics reject the hereditarian hypothesis based on genetic reasoning as was explained in the previous post.

The consensus that exists amongst academics involved in evolutionary genetics is that they/we do not know enough about how it works in order to hold hereditary factors notably responsible for differences in intellect inbetween racial groups. A few of those within that consensus reject it as impossible, yes (but not for scientific reasons, rather ideological/emotional ones).

E.g, as noted on in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns":

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of blacks and whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential

They note that there is no such support for a genetic interpretation. While I (and many others) may disagree somewhat on that note, it is prudent to realize that the differences are not effectively boiled down to previously assumed factors like test-bias or general socio-economic enviroment. As is attested to above, we simply do not know.

I don't see this debate as one between two opposite extremes, just opposing viewpoints.

Both of the above. The viewpoints might be simplified into a 'one or the other' side of the debate but it would be over-all misleading, plus... there's a spectra to be considered.

There's no reason to suppose that human populations are differentiated in the allelic variation related to intelligence therefore the inquiry in to the possibility by psychometricians is based on a fallacy. All that the consistent reporting on inequality in average IQ between groups tells us is that there are consistent differences in environmental variables that impact the nurturing of intelligence.

It's been, for most parts, generally unconvincing as a sole or even prime variable (allthough I believe it is reasonable to include as one of them). I do not regard it as an "if" or "if not" issue, but how much/to which extent and degree the known influental aspects affect human qualities, similarities and differences in traits which we know are otherwise, individually, part innate and part "X factor".

The debate over how heritable the difference between population groups is is reminiscent of the saying that someone can be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't. Genetics is either a factor or it isn't.

That's simply not correct. It isn't "either or"/"black or white", in the same way it isn't for a great deal of human traits and abilities which are molded in part by innate qualities and in part by enviromental stimuli (or lack thereof). I'd recommend "Nature via Nurture" by Matt Ridley, he explains this very well.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

The consensus that exists amongst academics involved in evolutionary genetics is that they/we do not know enough about how it works in order to hold hereditary factors notably responsible for differences in intellect inbetween racial groups. A few of those within that consensus reject it as impossible, yes (but not for scientific reasons, rather ideological/emotional ones).

E.g, as noted on in "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"

That article was by Psychologists not experts on evolutionary genetics. While the article doesn't support the hereditarian position as you noted their understanding of genetics is a bit limited. You really should read The Race and IQ Fallacy by Joseph Graves which I quoted or The Pseudoscience of Psychometry paper.

That's simply not correct. It isn't "either or"/"black or white", in the same way it isn't for a great deal of human traits and abilities which are molded in part by innate qualities and in part by enviromental stimuli (or lack thereof). I'd recommend "Nature via Nurture" by Matt Ridley, he explains this very well.

I'm aware of gene x environment interactions I'm simply talking about the role genetics plays in between group heritability of IQ differences. It either plays a role or it doesn't. The nature of that role is a separate issue from whether there is a role to begin with. Again I don't feel that the environmentalist position is extreme especially when it is based on genetic reasoning. We may not know all the reasons for why there is IQ score variation between groups but we can be certain that the explanations are environmental and furthermore that the gap can be reduced and eliminated.

 

[AlBell]

Read the review http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v87/n2/full/6889531a.html

Graves seems a bit self-serving, so to speak. I guess you cite what you've got.

 

[Jono]

That article was by Psychologists not experts on evolutionary genetics. While the article doesn't support the hereditarian position as you noted their understanding of genetics is a bit limited. You really should read The Race and IQ Fallacy by Joseph Graves which I quoted or The Pseudoscience of Psychometry paper.

While "psychologist" and being an expert, or well versed enough to be considered, on "evolutionary genetics" are not mutually exclusive it is important to note that the formentioned article was indeed primarily written from that field of expertise. Now, I do not agree with every single thing they declare, show or suppose in that article. As a general piece of work, however, I think it is very balanced, sourced and well defended. As for Grave's text (and I know you think highly of him), I've mainly read commentary elsewhere and shorter segments of his work, including parts of his different lists of objection-points on, mainly if not almost exclusively, Rushton's work. It's been a while though. An objection I recalled was the eager attitude, which is not unique for Graves (used to be the public lipservice norm even) to set/put aside heritability of IQ in and amongst people since the genetic variance might only be at .4-.5 . He's probably correct on a great deal of points, no doubt, but perhaps he has faced off too much with extreme opposition so that he has felt compelled to brace himself moreso toward the other direction? If so, then it would understandable, as humans tend to (especially academics) behave like that (in my own experience, which is just an anecdotal observation).

I'm aware of gene x environment interactions I'm simply talking about the role genetics plays in between group heritability of IQ differences. It either plays a role or it doesn't.

Again, that isn't correct. E.g a sub-saharan cluster/group/tribe (what have you) might differ from a northern siberian one for several reasons at play at the same time but potentially caused largely by one or two variables, while differing from a south-east asian or polynesian group for similar or same reasons but with more differential-predominance on other variables. In the same way, individually, a black man in the US might differ (intellecually) from a jewish man in the US in part due to some innate qualities while, at the same time, the black man could differ from a vietnamese or hispanic person chiefly because of other reasons. It's very, very difficult to make any authoritive statements over-all on it.

We may not know all the reasons for why there is IQ score variation between groups but we can be certain that the explanations are environmental and furthermore that the gap can be reduced and eliminated.

Nope, we can't be certain that between-group variation (regarding IQ score or g-loaded based estimates) are only societal. Neither can we be certain that the given gap can be eliminated. It might be, but at least I do not see how one can be certain of it, especially not since for all of the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at making socio-economical ends met in order to par up different groups to an even keel with regards to otherwise partly innate qualities, we still have pretty much the same variance (as if there was a phenomena of regression toward the group-mean).

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Read the review http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v87/n2/full/6889531a.html

Graves seems a bit self-serving, so to speak. I guess you cite what you've got.

I've read it.

I got Graves to respond to it as well:

I remember this review quite well. Rowe did a great job of mischaracterizing my book. However I also remember seeing this as a sign that my work was on the right track. You know your greatness by the vehemence of your enemies.

Sincerely,

Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr

Here is a more positive review of his book:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/graves.html

I see several problems with Rowe's review. Looking him up I notice that he is a psychologist who is not qualified to speak on matters of biology and genetics though he continually talks about genetics and the concept of race throughout his review while making numerous errors. Not surprisingly he is also one of the signatories on the Mainstream Science on Intelligence article drafted by Linda Gottfredson, an article that tried to argue among other things that there was probably a genetic basis to racial differences in intelligence. Perhaps Rowe had an axe to grind? MachEachern, the author of the other book review, could be said to be an advocate on the opposite end of the spectrum but as a Biological Anthropologist he at least has the credentials to know what he's talking about.

While "psychologist" and being an expert, or well versed enough to be considered, on "evolutionary genetics" are not mutually exclusive it is important to note that the formentioned article was indeed primarily written from that field of expertise.

It's written from a psychological perspective where the authors attempt to analyze the role that genetic and environmental factors play in between group heritability of intelligence but arguments over the genetic reasoning for supposing that there are genetic differences is missing. Graves is not the only one who has written on this subject, I recommend C Loring Brace's article An Anthropological Perspective on Race and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities.

Ken Richardson's in his review of Jensen's book The G Factor summarizes the main points quite well:

IV. RACE

18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive 'races' exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.

19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were 'flung out' onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general - in the physical world as well as the social.

20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection - one which can 'model' the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are 'quite literally superficial... the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups ("races") distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence'.

Compare that to Graves statement in The Pseudoscience of Psychometry:

THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENT ON COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell-shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982).

However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non-European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category.

To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.

SOURCE: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

And now the abstract of Brace's article:

Traits that are clinally distributed are under the control of selective forces that are distributed in graded fashion. Traits that cluster in certain regions are simply the results of relatedness and are not adaptively important. Traits that are of equal survival value for all human populations should show no average difference from one population to another. Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations. The archaeological record shows that, at any one time during the Pleistocene, survival strategies were essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation. Both archaeological and biological data contribute to the picture of the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and its subsequent maturation. The similarities in human capability were not the result of a sudden, recent, and localized common origin. Instead, the widely shared common human condition was the consequence of a long-term adaptation to common conditions during which specific unity was maintained by low but nontrivial rates of genetic exchange among groups. The differences in human lifeways that have arisen since the end of the Pleistocene--and in most instances much more recently--have had too little time to have had any measurable effect on the generation of inherited differences in intellectual ability. When average group differences in "intelligence" test scores are encountered, the first conclusion to be drawn is that the circumstances under which intellectual capabilities are nurtured and developed are not the same for the groups in question. Where such tests show different "racial" averages in test scores, this should be taken as an index of the continuing effects of "race" prejudice and not of inherent differences in capability.

What all of these articles have in common is a scientific basis to reject the theory that genetic differences related to intelligence between races exist. There is simply no genetic reasoning to suppose this. What we know about natural selection and genetic drift indicates that genetic variation in intelligence is at best scattered across human populations and that humans have a general cognitive capacity that would have been a prerequisite for the survival and success of our species. The archeological record supports this position. The biological data supports this position. We evolved as a species with a significant level of intelligence and all human beings developed based on this evolutionary model. Any significant deviations in intelligence ought to result from genetic afflictions (e.g. heritable mental illness), lack of environmental stimuli (e.g. deficiency in learning environment) or other environmental factors that effect brain development and function (e.g. brain damage, malnutritition etc.) NOT genetic variation between populations.

As Graves explained in The Race and IQ Fallacy to suppose that the hereditarian position is correct one would have to identify a selection mechanism that could explain how the genetic differences came about. Population genetic theory doesn't support the existence of such a mechanism and Psychometricians who support the hereditarian view cannot identify one nor can they produce any credible experiments that support their position. The reason that Graves spent so much time critiquing Rushton's work is that he tried hard to do this using Life History theory but he failed.

Nope, we can't be certain that between-group variation (regarding IQ score or g-loaded based estimates) are only societal. Neither can we be certain that the given gap can be eliminated. It might be, but at least I do not see how one can be certain of it, especially not since for all of the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at making socio-economical ends met in order to par up different groups to an even keel with regards to otherwise partly innate qualities, we still have pretty much the same variance (as if there was a phenomena of regression toward the group-mean).

Clearly we are not going to agree on this point but after reviewing the research of Nisbett, Flynn and others it's apparent to me that IQ gaps between demographic groups such as Black and White Americans not only can be eliminated they have been significantly reduced in recent years.

A white in the top socioeconomic quintile based on income has more than twice the wealth of a black in the top quintile.12 A still more important point is to note what happens when one adds to the socioeconomic measurement of opportunity several measures of the environment that include family and neighborhood structural and resource measures including measures of the learning environment. When this adjustment is made, the blacks at a given "opportunity level" are now very close to the whites at a given level.13 Herrnstein and Murray note correctly that such attempts to equate for the full range of environmental variables are based on purely correlational data: it could in principle be the case that mother's IQ drives the other variables. However, the same regression equation that produces the results just presented predicts nothing more when mother's IQ is included. The data are thus more consistent with a purely environmental interpretation of the B/W gap than with one that leans on a genetic interpretation.

Source: The Bell Curve Wars p. 43

It is often asserted that Black Americans have made no IQ gains on White Americans. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure trends in Black IQ. We analyzed data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These data suggest that Blacks gained 4 to 7 IQ points on non-Hispanic Whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of Black cognitive ability.

Source: Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: evidence from standardization samples. Psychological Science Oct;17(10):913-20 (2006

So with no genetic reasoning to suppose that there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races and ample evidence that IQ can be modified and improved both under controlled studies and on a populations level I would say that evidence supporting the environmentalist position is conclusive. We don't know everything about intelligence. We don't know everything about how environmental variables effect intelligence but we don't have to in the same way that Astronomers don't know everything about the Universe but they know enough to reject Astrology. They get a lot of passionate debate from New Agers but Astrology can be refuted on scientific grounds as can Creationism and other forms of Pseudoscience.

 

[blutoski]

Even subtle differences may have a measurable effect, and while it does not make comparisons invalid, it does make it important to be careful what conclusions one draws from those comparisons. If a test shows that people of a certain population group score lower than another group, do you then conclude that group is inherently worse at the task tested and any attempt to educate them better is wasted, or do you conclude that the group is not educated effectively in the task and requires better education?

The test is not designed to 'conclude' anything more than the IQ scores that would be used as a variable to test these hypotheses. The intrinsic vs extrinsic influences on the score are not revealed by IQ scoring itself. It is an axis.

Of course you can do this is see how a Chinese child compares to the average of Chinese children, or how an English child compares to the average of English children. It won't let you compare the average of Chinese children with the average of English children -- which is what IQ race comparisons try to do -- because you used two different tests.

Nope. The Chinese subject's results are not being normalized against just Chinese test participants. As it happens, it would be shocking if we found that a Cantonese speaking kid diagnosed with an IQ of 50 was not about as mentally challenged as an English speaking kid with an IQ of 50, since the scoring algorithm is not siloed.

When IQ tests are used in an attempt to measure the differences in innate genetically caused cognitive abilities between "racial" groups, cultural biases that skew the results and the cultural biases that contribute to the results are one and the same; they prevent one from measuring the thing one is trying to measure. You may find different scores between "races", but you won't discover how the difference is caused.

I disagree.

I'd like to give you a concrete example. I was involved in an exploration of First Nations children's health. As it happens, there is a measurable mean average impact to IQ in First Nations children. Identification of a consistent and significant difference across this racial definition justifies investigating causes. Relevantly, these children have a considerably higher risk of fetal exposure to alcohol and drugs, and controlled comparison with adopted children and years of custody indicates this is causal. Programs designed to reduce drug abuse could be argued to have improved intellectual performance in the next generation among their benefits. Burying the problem as an artefact of study design would have the same effect as refusing to acknowledge the problem. As somebody seeking to improve prospects for the underprivileged, I get very disappointed when somebody tells me that comparing psychological scores across cultures is impossible, misguided, or futile. I perceive them as meddlers who often cause more harm with their good intentions than actual racists.

Another concrete example is in my wife's workplace. She is a psychiatrist who works with Doctors Without Borders on annual expeditions to 3rd world countries. She is frequently exposed to cultural differences in how mental illness is perceived but the psychiatric testing scores that contribute to diagnosis (which are interview-based) are consistent. A schizophrenic in Canada is just as schizophrenic in Tobago, despite cultural differences in how they are behaving compared to others within their catchment. To put this another way: rejecting the possibility of cross-cultural phenomena in favour of within-culture scoring can border on a justification for neglect.

Disclaimer: I am a white male, foster-cared by parents from many races, married to a black woman, with children from different races.

 

[blutoski]

The test is not designed to 'conclude' anything more than the IQ scores that would be used as a variable to test these hypotheses. The intrinsic vs extrinsic influences on the score are not revealed by IQ scoring itself. It is an axis.

Further elaboration: I'm defending IQ (and it's equivalents') cross-cultural consistency because my impression from the literature is that so far all measured differences have clear environmental causes (pre and post natal), with no evidence of a genetic component. Dismissing this type of evidence would revert the body of literature back to "we just don't know so both hypotheses are equally valid," which is not the case. Right now, the literature is leaning heavily against a measurable genetic component to intelligence precisely because we can justify these comparisons.

 

[AlBell]

Further elaboration: I'm defending IQ (and it's equivalents') cross-cultural consistency because my impression from the literature is that so far all measured differences have clear environmental causes (pre and post natal), with no evidence of a genetic component. Dismissing this type of evidence would revert the body of literature back to "we just don't know so both hypotheses are equally valid," which is not the case. Right now, the literature is leaning heavily against a measurable genetic component to intelligence precisely because we can justify these comparisons.

Do you ascribe any difference between genetics and epi-genetics?

 

[Morchella]

IQ is a feeble attempt to measure intelligence and put it on a linear scale. From reading Steven Jay Gould's, "Mismeasure of Man" the whole idea of IQ is a farce and only the naive and MENSA give it any weight. Even the idea of "race" is anachronistic and not given much credence among biologists.

 

[angrysoba]

IQ is a feeble attempt to measure intelligence and put it on a linear scale. From reading Steven Jay Gould's, "Mismeasure of Man" the whole idea of IQ is a farce and only the naive and MENSA give it any weight. Even the idea of "race" is anachronistic and not given much credence among biologists.

I think there is a big difference to say that IQ is somewhat unreliable and culturally-biased and a few other things, and saying it is "a farce" that deserves "no weight".

If you worked in, say, a bank, and had to make a choice between two candidates and only had their IQ scores; one had an IQ of 40 and one had an IQ of 120, then you would be a fool to pick the first one, unless your only concern was that you didn't want the employee to run off with the money.

To say something isn't perfect is not the same thing as saying it is worthless. To say something is highly flawed is also not the same thing as saying it is worthless. In some cases IQ may be as useful or more than any other measure, so it seems that there is no need to go from one extreme to the other.

 

[Jono]

What all of these articles have in common is a scientific basis to reject the theory that genetic differences related to intelligence between races exist. There is simply no genetic reasoning to suppose this.

Almost directly given by those very articles is exactly the problem I've been talking about. The point out examples where 'even'ness' is expected and "somewhat" achieved, while bendinv over backwards not to point out anything else (like in the snippet from the 'Bell Curve Wars', that the gap inbetween the evenly placed groups largely remain) such as the pink elephant in the room; hereditarian basis. The words "consistent" is used for this allegedly achieved and observed 'even'ness', but again without pointing out that it hasn't really been evened out that much (and with the expected, yet irrelevant, injection of Lewontin's Fallacy). This is why the sum of the data provided by those texts is i.e (in my own words); "The environment playes a role, though exactly what does and to what degree is less certain. The full picture is not graspable yet, as we're just sticking with half or two thirds of the variables, so we will never be really sure".

We have consistently observed differences of whole slew of human traits inbetween individuals as well as groups. When it comes to cognitive abilities, like intelligence, again we have little reason to reject a partial hereditarian basis unless environmental variables can fully explain and work out the differences. None of those texts provide a case for the latter, they (at best) explain two thirds of the phenomena. Now, this doesn't mean there always have to be a genetic variable for every single thing, or between every group-comparison. It just means that the remaining variables fail to explain it in full. Also, I noticed Brace (yet again) appeals to "race prejudice" as being a prime variable impacting on minorities intellectual capabilities, naturally said in a white-vs-black mode of thought ignoring that it must've then had the opposite effect for the majority of jewish, chinese and japanese immigrants in the past who, while subjected to racial prejudice, consistently come out on top by comparison.

As Graves explained in The Race and IQ Fallacy to suppose that the hereditarian position is correct one would have to identify a selection mechanism that could explain how the genetic differences came about. Population genetic theory doesn't support the existence of such a mechanism and Psychometricians who support the hereditarian view cannot identify one nor can they produce any credible experiments that support their position.

We have few answers regarding "selection mechanisms" for several traits which consistently show partial genetic variance, including intelligence. In a sense, we've barely begun to map out any comprehension of the genome/DNA relation. This alone leaves a rather large blank-space on what genes may be chiefly behind the influence of intelligence, but also makes us ignorant of what (if any) other genes or such may be acting as 'boosters' or 'dampeners' in response to X and Y inner or outer stimuli (like DTNBP1 which, genetic variant thereof, can have an impact on intelligence indirectly as it has been linked to susceptibility for schizophrenia and ontop of that disruption of different cognitive patters). This means there may or may not be variance inbetween populations on things only indirectly related to intelligence, which nevertheless have an impact on it. In many ways, there are similar problems with understanding why the genetic variance is at times so high between individuals. So, while it is always (or usually) easier to explain similarities and differences inbetween individuals, when it comes to human traits the causes tend to be the same (the only discrepencies tend to be on what specific variable/s weigh heavier than the other). Again, several of these traits show a very minor gene-differentiation when larger groups are compared to each other than on an individual between-group comparison or individual within-group consideration, but without prematurely stating the falsety that hereditarian basis is null n void. In any case, none of this suggests that any such discrepencies can't be minimized, only that for whatever causes the discrepencies we may not be able to use one absolute yardstick-explanation for it all.

From one thing to another, I was wondering if you know of any response Nisbett has made to Rushton's and Jensen's joint-critique of Richard's "Intelligence and How To Get It..."? Their critique was called 'Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It' but I suspect it hasn't gone unanswered by Nisbett (though I've not found his response yet).
A few excerpts from the above critique, if you haven't read it yet yourself:

In this paper we provide a point-counterpoint response to the evidence and arguments that Nisbett marshals against our nature + nurture model. In so doing, we use a format that should enable readers to identify the main topics of contention and the merits and demerits of each side of the debate. We discuss: the malleability of IQ scores; culture-loaded vs. g-loaded tests; stereotype threat, caste, and other “X” factors; reaction-time measures; within-race heritability; between race heritability; sub-Saharan African IQ scores; race differences in brain size; sex differences in brain size; trans-racial adoption studies; racial admixture studies; regression to the mean effects; and human origins research and life-history theory.
...

Some of Nisbett’s errors that are of commission might be due to seeing the data differently, as when he exaggerated the magnitude of the Black IQ score gains. He claimed they amounted to 4.5 out of 15 points (30%) even after the inclusion of the small and negative gains that Rushton and Jensen [25] argued Dickens and Flynn [24] had left out, rather than the 2.1 points (14%) calculated by Rushton and Jensen (Section 2). Similarly, on the NAEP achievement tests, he claimed a Black gain of 35% instead of the 20% reported by Gottfredson [28]—perhaps due to the fact that he and Gottfredson used different measures and Nisbett excluded the NAEP Science test that Gottfredson included, which showed a full 1 SD Black-White difference. Other errors were of omission. For example, when Nisbett discussed culture-loaded versus g-loaded tests, he failed to mention Flynn’s [18] apparent change of heart over the importance of the g factor for Black-White differences (Section 3). Flynn stated that, “the black gains are like hearing aids. They do cut the cognitive gap but they are not eliminating the root causes….if the root causes are somehow eliminated, we can be confident that the IQ gap and the g gap will both disappear” (p. 85).

Perhaps Nisbett overlooked (or had forgotten) the large data sets we marshaled in a paper [8] on which he was a commentator [190], against the stereotype threat hypothesis, Ogbu’s caste theory, or the other “X factors” he described, for he never mentioned them (Section 4). Unfortunately Nisbett’s highly selective method appeared again and again. For example, in his discussion of reaction time tasks (in Section 5), he minimized the magnitude of the inter-task correlations (.20 instead of .60); in his discussion of the adoption and heritability studies of young children showing how malleable IQ can be, he neglected to inform his readers that these effects are known to dissipate by late adolescence (Section 6); in his suggestion that heritability is lower in Blacks due to oppressive social conditions, he neglected to cite the studies showing equal heritabilities (Section 7); and in his citation of Turkheimer’s [86, 90] finding of lower heritabilities for the poorest social class, he omitted to mention that other behavior genetic studies did not replicate them (also Section 7).

Clearly we are not going to agree on this point but after reviewing the research of Nisbett, Flynn and others it's apparent to me that IQ gaps between demographic groups such as Black and White Americans not only can be eliminated they have been significantly reduced in recent years.

Reduced, mainly, on smaller subsets of groups and narrow format, nevertheless there has been an impact in the sense of the Flynn effect. However, what is ignored with that is (beyond being a bit exaggerated) that it has basically come to a halt in western societies. The degree to which this effect acts in relationship to general intelligence, or if it has much to do with it to start with, is not proven nor seriously suggested to my knowledge.

It is often asserted that Black Americans have made no IQ gains on White Americans. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure trends in Black IQ. We analyzed data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These data suggest that Blacks gained 4 to 7 IQ points on non-Hispanic Whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of Black cognitive ability.

Like I noted on above, available information appear to (for most parts) suggest that this might've been related to the Flynn-effect, which would explain why also this medium of 5.5 IQ points during the given 30-year period has pretty much stopped as, for example, mentioned in the study 'The magnitude and components of change in the black–white IQ difference from 1920 to 1991...'(-07).

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I think there is a big difference to say that IQ is somewhat unreliable and culturally-biased and a few other things, and saying it is "a farce" that deserves "no weight".

If you worked in, say, a bank, and had to make a choice between two candidates and only had their IQ scores; one had an IQ of 40 and one had an IQ of 120, then you would be a fool to pick the first one, unless your only concern was that you didn't want the employee to run off with the money.

To say something isn't perfect is not the same thing as saying it is worthless. To say something is highly flawed is also not the same thing as saying it is worthless. In some cases IQ may be as useful or more than any other measure, so it seems that there is no need to go from one extreme to the other.

I own the 1996 edition of Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man which includes extra commentary on his key positions. Gould said that he doesn't have a problem with mental testing itself. What he takes issue with is psychometricians reifying their factors. Concepts like the g factor are not real biological entities. There's no (to use Gould's phrase) thing in the brain that we can identify and equate with the concept of General Intelligence. When you take an IQ test your score is a number that is meant to gauge your mental ability. There are many problems with the assumption that we can actually measure intelligence and many more with the idea that we can rank it in hierarchical fashion as racialists due when they compare difference in IQ score between races. This is what Gould meant by "mismeasuring" man.

Intelligence isn't something you can measure and rank. It's not like running speed or weightlifting. Intelligence is a complex, multifactorial trait. There are many aspects of mental functioning that an IQ test can not measure which one could call "intelligence" or an aspect of it. Mental testing can have utility as you can gauge a person's aptitude for certain mental tasks through testing but its very difficult if not impossible to quantify a person's potential to learn and apply knowledge. IQ tests don't do this and psychometricians who presume that they do are in error for insisting that they can.

Almost directly given by those very articles is exactly the problem I've been talking about. The point out examples where 'even'ness' is expected and "somewhat" achieved, while bendinv over backwards not to point out anything else (like in the snippet from the 'Bell Curve Wars', that the gap inbetween the evenly placed groups largely remain) such as the pink elephant in the room; hereditarian basis. The words "consistent" is used for this allegedly achieved and observed 'even'ness', but again without pointing out that it hasn't really been evened out that much (and with the expected, yet irrelevant, injection of Lewontin's Fallacy). This is why the sum of the data provided by those texts is i.e (in my own words); "The environment playes a role, though exactly what does and to what degree is less certain. The full picture is not graspable yet, as we're just sticking with half or two thirds of the variables, so we will never be really sure".

When you say the sum of the data is in your own words etc. is that your paraphrasing of their conclusions or your interpretation of what their data means? Because what they are all saying is that there is no scientific basis to suppose that there are genetic differences related to intelligence between races. This statement is based on their authoritative understanding of population genetics. This view has never really been challenged by hereditarians because they don't understand evolutionary genetics. My posting of a series of these arguments was to establish that those who do are on the same page on this topic.

I'm not sure what Lewontin's Fallacy has to do with anything. I assume your mentioning of this is in reference to the comments about within and between group genetic variation. It is relevant because the way our genes are structured means that observed genetic variation can not account for group differences in intelligence. For the record I do not believe that Lewontin committed a fallacy. Edwards and Lewontin both made valid points about human genetic variation. There is more within group genetic variability than between group genetic variability. Some of the between group variability is ancestry informative but making taxonomic distinctions based on it is arbitrary as you can end up with an infinite number of populations if you use the genetic variance as a basis for subdividing people into groups.

The comments of my sources on human genetics are very relevant to this discussion because they cover why and how any alleged differences in intelligence occurred in the first place. If there is no valid genetic reasoning for supposing that genes determining intelligence are unevenly differentiated then the theory that they are is false. As for The Bell Curve Wars snippet what it said was that the gap in IQ was significantly reduced when looking at measures of Socioeconomic status along with family and neighborhood quality. That's Nisbett's research. Elsewhere he has said the gap was virtually eliminated. So a significant gap didn't remain. The IQs were so comparable that any remaining difference was statistically insignificant which shouldn't be possible if there is a significant hereditarian component.

We have consistently observed differences of whole slew of human traits inbetween individuals as well as groups. When it comes to cognitive abilities, like intelligence, again we have little reason to reject a partial hereditarian basis unless environmental variables can fully explain and work out the differences. None of those texts provide a case for the latter, they (at best) explain two thirds of the phenomena. Now, this doesn't mean there always have to be a genetic variable for every single thing, or between every group-comparison. It just means that the remaining variables fail to explain it in full. Also, I noticed Brace (yet again) appeals to "race prejudice" as being a prime variable impacting on minorities intellectual capabilities, naturally said in a white-vs-black mode of thought ignoring that it must've then had the opposite effect for the majority of jewish, chinese and japanese immigrants in the past who, while subjected to racial prejudice, consistently come out on top by comparison.

Well first of all no, we don't need to identify every environmental variable that could explain intellectual and behavorial differences between groups. It's a basic principle of quantitative genetics that the non-shared environment between two genotypes means any difference in measured phentoype is not comparable. So we can't assume genetic causality for measured differences in phenotype whether we're talking about IQ score, income, crime statistics or any other variable because the environment between the groups is not equal. Most importantly there isn't a genetic basis to suppose these differences exist in the first place.

Now as for racial prejudice the fact of that matter is that not all groups have been discriminated against in the same way and there are unique circumstances that make one group's experience with discrimination different from another group. For instance while Chinese and Japanese Americans have certainly experienced discrimination in America they haven't done so to the same extent and in the same way as African-Americans. Slavery insured that Black American's cultural connection to Africa was completely destroyed including their identity, customs and values. White racism has had an intense psychological effect on Black Americans as have racist laws that resulted in African-Americans being deprived of basically every right White Americans have to help them advance including inequality in housing, education, employment and the right to vote.

Black Americans came to America with no rights and no source of income then were deprived of equal rights for decades before social reform changed those racist policies. A lot of Asian-Americans are 3rd, 2nd and 1st generation immigrants who came to America with a degree of wealth and cultural identity that African-Americans simply didn't have. The prime example of what anti-Black racism has done to African-Americans of Middle Passage descent is to look at the success of African immigrants in America who are doing even better on average than Asian-Americans.

From one thing to another, I was wondering if you know of any response Nisbett has made to Rushton's and Jensen's joint-critique of Richard's "Intelligence and How To Get It..."? Their critique was called 'Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It' but I suspect it hasn't gone unanswered by Nisbett (though I've not found his response yet).

I emailed Nisbett myself about the paper and this is what he had to say:

I didn't finish the posting. I saw no new arguments by the time I stopped reading. I frankly don't take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes.

Nisbett did co-author an article published in 2012 (the same year both Rushton and Jensen died so we won't be seeing a response from them) which addressed a lot of Rushton and Jensen's arguments. My personal impression of the paper was that the arguments were extremely weak and were rehashes of alot of Rushton's research which have been addressed by other scholars. I can go over some of it point by point if you like.

Reduced, mainly, on smaller subsets of groups and narrow format, nevertheless there has been an impact in the sense of the Flynn effect. However, what is ignored with that is (beyond being a bit exaggerated) that it has basically come to a halt in western societies. The degree to which this effect acts in relationship to general intelligence, or if it has much to do with it to start with, is not proven nor seriously suggested to my knowledge.

I'm not aware of the Flynn Effect coming to a halt in Western societies. Nevertheless there are several ability tests that are highly correlated with IQ (as high as .9) which indicate that Black American IQs are rapidly converging on White American IQ. This isn't related to the Flynn Effect. This is directly linked to the improvement in learning environment of African-Americans over the past 30 years since the civil rights movement resulting in Black students doing better in school. Even in the past 4 years we've seen an improvement in Black American academic success in what has been called an Obama Effect. The election of the first African-American President of the United States has improved the self-esteem of Black Americans so much it is reflected in academic success.

Stereotype threat has been proven to be a legitimate hindrance to Black American IQ test scores in the past so it's not surprising that a positive self-image can give Black Americans a boost in score. If Flynn, Nisbett and other psychometricians are correct, that the Black American IQ score has been decreased by nearly half of what it was 30 years ago then the statistical evidence cited by racial hereditarians who maintain that a genetic basis to group differences in IQ is plausible is literally disappearing. I did read Rushton and Jensen's (or just Rushton if Nisbett's accusation is correct) rebuttal to the claim but they appeared to be in denial.

 

[angrysoba]

I own the 1996 edition of Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man which includes extra commentary on his key positions. Gould said that he doesn't have a problem with mental testing itself. What he takes issue with is psychometricians reifying their factors. Concepts like the g factor are not real biological entities. There's no (to use Gould's phrase) thing in the brain that we can identify and equate with the concept of General Intelligence. When take an IQ test your score is a number that is meant to gauge your mental ability. There are many problems with the assumption that we can actually measure intelligence and many more with the idea that we can rank it in hierarchical fashion as racialists due when they compare difference in IQ score between races. This is what Gould meant by "mismeasuring" man.

Intelligence isn't something you can measure and rank. It's not like running speed or weightlifting. Intelligence is a complex, multifactorial trait. There are many aspects of mental functioning that an IQ test can not measure which one could call "intelligence" or an aspect of it. Mental testing can have utility as you can gauge a person's aptitude for certain mental tasks through testing but its very difficult if not impossible to quantify a person's potential to learn and apply knowledge. IQ tests don't do this and psychometricians who presume that they do are in error for insisting that they can.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here (I say "not necessarily" because I haven't read all the arguments relating to this), but I am only responding to this post:

IQ is a feeble attempt to measure intelligence and put it on a linear scale. From reading Steven Jay Gould's, "Mismeasure of Man" the whole idea of IQ is a farce and only the naive and MENSA give it any weight. Even the idea of "race" is anachronistic and not given much credence among biologists.

Morchella's reading of Gould seems to be different to your reading of Gould. I would tend to agree with your reading more than that of Morchella's as I don't think "the whole idea of IQ is a farce" that should be given no weight. I think for certain purposes it could indeed have weight, but I do agree that it probably isn't the whole story when it comes to intelligence.

 

[Morchella]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here (I say "not necessarily" because I haven't read all the arguments relating to this), but I am only responding to this post:



Morchella's reading of Gould seems to be different to your reading of Gould. I would tend to agree with your reading more than that of Morchella's as I don't think "the whole idea of IQ is a farce" that should be given no weight. I think for certain purposes it could indeed have weight, but I do agree that it probably isn't the whole story when it comes to intelligence.

Maybe you should read Gould yourself because I can't summarize the whole book in a single paragraph. The problem with IQ is that intelligence is more complicated than one number on a linear scale. To devise a test for intelligence there could be no control group among humans who's total education and cultural experience are equal. I do believe there are differences in innate intelligence among humans but measuring it is next to impossible. I know I'm no Einstein but I probably excel in a few things he never attempted.
The problem I have with this thread is the implied difference in intelligence among "races". Modern genetics has shot the idea of race dead. Superficially we may look different but genetically we are much closer than we appear. The implication that there is a difference in intelligence between races is mostly a veiled racist attempt to cling to privilege.