Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[angrysoba]

Maybe you should read Gould yourself because I can't summarize the whole book in a single paragraph.

Well, you summarized its message in this statement: "the whole idea of IQ is a farce and only the naive and MENSA give it any weight."

I just wonder if that is exactly true.

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 don't disagree that intelligence is complicated, or that IQ tells the whole story. But it doesn't follow from that that "the whole idea of IQ is a farce and only the naive and MENSA give it any weight."

Even you seem to suggest that it actually exists, but then you say that is "next to impossible" to measure, which suggests you think it is not actually impossible in principle.

But I wonder if you are correct when you talk about no possible way of having control groups. Surely, in order to devise a useful test for intelligence you could have studies of identical twins, those who have lived together in broadly similar environments and those who have lived in very different environments to see if there are correlations between genetics and/or environment. In fact, I would imagine, without checking the literature that studies such as those must have been done, as it seems a pretty obvious way of testing.

I would also caution against the idea that just because something seems very difficult to do or that just because a perfect, fool-proof method that admits of absolutely no counter-examples is difficult to imagine or may not always provide perfectly reliable data, it absolutely does not follow that that something must therefore carry no weight and/or be a complete farce.

Predicting the weather cannot always be perfect, but it doesn't follow that weather forecasting is some kind of occult pseudo-science. Trying to understand second language acquisition, involves an enormous amount of variables according to the individuals but also the differences between the L1 and the L2 target language. It doesn't follow that just because things are hard to understand or make predictions about that it is meaningless.

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.

I don't think "the thread" implies a difference between races but whether any research into races and IQ should be permitted. Wouldn't you call Stephen Jay Gould's work research no race and IQ? If so, should it be banned?

Just to let you know, I also recognize no scientific concept of race, but when it comes to intelligence, while there may be no precise definition, we tend to recognize something that we call intelligence, even you recognize it as your invocation of Einstein demonstrates. We also recognize something that we call intelligence by saying that human beings are intelligent animals, chimpanzees are somewhat intelligent, dogs a considerable amount less so, and worms are unintelligent, while saying that rocks are intelligent is meaningless. We might consider these to be folk concepts but they still mean something to most of us and are presumably within sciences remit to explain to us if only after we have more clearly dilineated types of intelligence.

 

[Jono]

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.

First of all to presuppose that only people who agree that there is no scientific basis to suppose genetic differences, related to intelligence inbetween larger populations (race or et al), are the only ones who understand genetics is not a wise statement. Whether someone understand's it is seperate from one's position on that matter. When it comes to evolutionary genetics, it is pretty much equally difficult to claim a scientific basis for heritability of risk-taking inbetween larger groups, or of any heritability for any traits between populations. Yet, at the same time, most human traits (if not all) are more or less hereditary. One of the last remaining roadblocks in the controversy of nature-vs-nurute of the radical scientism of yesterday (i.e the 'blank slate' ground of the 60's-80's) is the one relating to cognitive differences inbetween populations.

Not surprisingly, with so few direct links between a given gene or sets thereof and a specific behaviour, we can only (like in the case of individuals) observe correlation but without much knowledge of the causation. The problem of discerning what affects what is not helped by the probability of there existing several indirect causes for what gives so and so level and form of cognitive abilities, such as the ones I mentioned earlier. And we simply do not have enough of knowledge or finds with regards to direct or indirect gene-to-behaviour to further understand the correlations so consistently given. The more mundane fact that human variance is 'continous', that there is more variance within-group than betwee-group et al are, while true, more or less irrelevant to the issue as far as I can see. Those arguments tend to, understandably, note that in the absence of any formentioned linkage (which we have found a few indirect ones however) then there is little reason to apply a hereditarian approach to explain the correlations.

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.

As with the allegedly non-existant transracial studies (I noted on earlier that Nisbett picked one out of 5, because it was the only one not showing a correlation), the condensation of stratification into smaller and younger groups would not surprisingly show much less of a gap. We know that the heritability of traits, generally, increases with age. We also know that, going by the socio-economic bias approach, the arguments on behalf of such a case against any hereditarian basis seems mostly if not only remotely valid in a black-vs-white setting. This is not really controversial. Also, Nisbett's references to previous research (one of which was done by a fraudster) does not really go very far as to show that the gap not only can but have been notably reduced (again for additional reasons previously stated).

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.

Phenotype is only one, and somewhat superficial, guide to population genetics, racial make-up, ecotypical lineage etc. Your above statement is somehow taking the latter and assuming that we're only going by skin-colour.

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.

Somewhat different experiences yes but with next to no evidence for how these different experiences are what causes differences in intelligence. On an individual as well as within-family/between-family we're continously showing a heritability of human behavioural traits to be around half of the variance, with intelligence often showing a slightly higher degree of heritability. Again, whether large or small, I've not seen how the non-miniscule and consistent gaps inbetween different populations would operate completely outside of this heritability as if we were somehow clones on that particular trait alone.

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.

Somewhat overstated but I don't particulary disagree with the gist of your argument. Yet if it would only be about the socio-economic pressure uniquely pushing black people in the US down a standard deviation, the enormous reforms and efforts put in to differentiate this past wrong of pre-60's US to today would/should have been moreso eliminated, unless there are other factors also at play which might be harder to evidence specifically (it could be partial heritability, it could be something indirect within the gene-vs-environment dynamic, it could also be something Nisbett and Graves themselves have yet to find which would succesfully exclude to former).

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.

It has come to a halt. And the Gap is not shown to rapidly converge in general. Were we mainly find this convergence is on teenage and pre-pubertal studies which has by default a lower heritability variance. We would not find a slightly higher convergence here, however, had the socioeconomical upbringing like poverty or malnutrition been responsible variables.

 

[Jono]

For our behavioural/personality traits, the individual heritability is notable and marked. This is, I realise, not so much in question (in this thread). Like I've said before, I do not believe the general variables that make for individual differences are idental when looking at between-population comparisons. However, most of them appear to basically show the same variables in correlation, with the key note being that some may be more chiefly responsible than others. Now, I do not believe genetic variance to be the most profound or active. I do, though, fail to see how it can be completely excluded in the face of so many correlations between anatomical (from a variety of different social content) qualities. Brain size for example, which is a very old and for some popular variable to be included with regards to general intelligence. It correlates way above zero for IQ, for individuals as well as ecotypes (and mixes between ecotype 1 and 2 are, expectedly, intermediate in brain size, as with european-asian mixed people). Lately (having briefed more of Nisbett's work) I found that he puts a whole lot of focus (for evidence of reduced gaps and environmental effects to curb differences) on pre-pupertal to mid-teen samples. Heritability becomes more marked with age (for intelligence, from about .4 in childhood to .75-.80 in adulthood).

However, let me make it clear that I do not believe brain size, alone, can account for much behind the differences in intellect, though I suspect there it can play some part. I think Rushton (and Jensen at times) overestimates the importance of hereditarian influence for, as it is, very similar reasons that Graves and Nisbett underestimates it; direct influences or bust. And brain size would be much more of a small and indirect effect (which is sometimes, falsely, stated as if meant there is no effect/influence at all).

. 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.

Claiming that the gap has been halfed... isn't that based on the estimated projection they made (rather that the concluded on adult-gap difference)?? In response to, among others, Jensen's critique of the above conclusion, Flynn et al stated that their own information suggested that the adult gap remains neatly around 1.1 SD, which is definently not an increase (again, for adults, and I'm not claiming that there has been no over-all increase). Excerpt:

Treating GRE (Graduate Record Exam) results as a single source, almost 60 % of the studies analyzed refer to pre-1980 data. As for the 1.1 SD gap, Roth et al's median age would not be under 24. Our data give a current IQ for blacks age 24 of 83.4 or exactly 1.1 SDs below whites.
...
No recent data poses a serious challenge to our current estimates for black IQ: 95.4 at age 4, 90.5 at age 12, 87.0 at age 18. Today, the IQ gap between young blacks and whites is far less than 1.1 SDs.

Using 85 as the older estimate used by both concerned parties, there's been a 2 point increase using value at age 18 and a decrease of 1.6 points for age 24. You can't possibly equate this with a nearly halfed gap by any measure. What we can see, and in light of what I explained about heritability being more marked with age (estimates of children's scores are, also, more susceptible to environmental noise and temporary effects, which would be in keeping with temporary declines of gaps for children and young teens) is that it is pretty much unchanged (see 1918 estimates of 84 points vs 100 for black-vs-white people on conscripts for example).
Now I, unlike some others, understand what we know and what we do not know and realise we need to find more of specific gene-to-intelligence linkage before making any premature claims of what are variables are holding court moreso than others. By the same token, I can't be so humble to this issue that it would make me convinced that we should throw hereditarian possibilities under the bus, again unlike some others.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

By the same token, I can't be so humble to this issue that it would make me convinced that we should throw hereditarian possibilities under the bus, again unlike some others.

If you can't accept the scientific position of experts on evolutionary genetics then it's best to just agree to disagree on this issue. I already addressed brain size on the previous page. I personally don't think there are going to be any prominent scientists who will take up the mantle for Rushton and Jensen. Their ideas will die with them. I don't expect there to be any scientific breakthroughs supporting the racial hereditarian position because it's based on a false premise.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see how political policies on education help improve academic performance of all groups and help reduce these racial disparities as much as possible.

 

[Jono]

If you can't accept the scientific position of experts on evolutionary genetics then it's best to just agree to disagree on this issue.

It's not that I am dismissing the given position completely, of some of them (there are plenty of experts around), it's merely that I do not consider the claim, that this issue is only validly explained by socioeconomic factors, to be correct. But we can leave it at that regardless, at least we agree that related research (despite the result given) should not be banned.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see how political policies on education help improve academic performance of all groups and help reduce these racial disparities as much as possible.

That, indeed, plus the continued research done on the linkage of genes, pairs and structures, on human behaviour in general (which at least used to be a proverbial mine field).

 

[blutoski]

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

Not for the purpose of this topic, no, but that's because I haven't come across any research that reveals strong evidence for epigenetic influences on IQ. This could entirely be ignorance on my part.

 

[blutoski]

Now I, unlike some others, understand what we know and what we do not know and realise we need to find more of specific gene-to-intelligence linkage before making any premature claims of what are variables are holding court moreso than others. By the same token, I can't be so humble to this issue that it would make me convinced that we should throw hereditarian possibilities under the bus, again unlike some others.

One other factor that I've never seen addressed in any sort of control is veiled prejudice. The IQ gains for black Americans did seem to coincide with rapid expansion of opportunities and its levelling may represent that this expansion has run against residual invisible barriers.

We can control for income across black and white populations, control for many other socioeconomic factors such as single parenting &c, but there is a real influence from prejudice - despite legal equality - that impacts the manifestation of opportunities and the perception of opportunities - and therefore motivation - in a minority population essentially from birth.

This pertains to Babad's work on the relationship between return-on-investment expectations personal resource allocation, and unconscious signalling. Babad was concentrating on the educational environment (teacher/student relationship) but I think it's legitemate to consider these results generalizeable to a kid's relationship to social influences.

Strictly anecodotal but for illustration purposes: I grew up a white male so had to learn what black people experience over 18 years of living with my wife. Almost nobody has ever been outwardly racist, and many who pissed me off were probably not aware that they are prejudiced - but it did affect how they treat my wife and that has a cumultive impact on her self esteem and how she would regard opportunities that are legally available to her.

ETA: I just realized EgalitarianJay has already raised this point in an earlier post; sorry for the repetition.

 

[blutoski]

Some people do have a natural aptitude or "gift" for certain tasks that have a genetic basis>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a comparison its clear that many People of African descent have terrific athletic ability. Evolution surely has acted over the last 100,000 since the "Out of Africa" migration and split.

Unlikely. See Hoberman's "Darwin's Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race" for a relatively massmarket accessible refutation of racial biological sport advantage.

The best model is that it is entirely cultural.

Hoberman has corralled a refutation simply from history. Priceless examples include early 20th century coaches explaining why Jewish athletes dominated basketball - it must be a genetic advantage. Japanese used to dominate swimming to the point of being banned from international events for over a decade - it must be a genetic advantage. Blacks were pronounced genetically incapable of becoming distance runners or golfers.

 

[Jono]

duplicate post

 

[Jono]

Individuals can have a "a natural aptitude or "gift" for certain tasks that have a genetic basis", and certain populations, clusters, groups can have a higher frequency of such individuals than others, at least for a time. Saying "culture" is every bit as fuzzy and lacking in real explanatory power as saying "genes", when they are taken as agents acting in their own vacuum. They express themselves, seemingly, more or less interwoven.

As a curiosa, here is an article (of last year) I found from a quick googling that may or may not be of interest.

 

[Dancing David]

Individuals can have a "a natural aptitude or "gift" for certain tasks that have a genetic basis", and certain populations, clusters, groups can have a higher frequency of such individuals than others, at least for a time. Saying "culture" is every bit as fuzzy and lacking in real explanatory power as saying "genes", when they are taken as agents acting in their own vacuum. They express themselves, seemingly, more or less interwoven.

As a curiosa, here is an article (of last year) I found from a quick googling that may or may not be of interest.

And the evidence that 'race' is related to a group with higher intelligence ...

 

[Jono]

And the evidence that 'race' is related to a group with higher intelligence ...

Seperate issue, one which I wasn't responding to in the post you decided to quote.