Best post by far on the IQ/Race debate.
I am clearly not qualified to deliver a final opinion on the actual merits of the race/IQ debate. But I think that our social reaction to it is disturbing. And I do mean "our". I'm as creeped out as any latte-sipping liberal when people start arguing that blacks have genetically lower IQs than whites do. But hysterical revulsion is not the correct response to what is basically an empirical question.
In part, this is a justified reaction to the fact that so many of the people advancing these theories in public are clearly racists who have seized on a theory that validates their priors. But only in part. After all, the fact that any discussion of the possibility is greeted with hysterical revulsion guarantees that only two types of people will take the "pro" side in public: fearless iconoclasts who do not care what anyone thinks of them; and racists.
If there is a difference, and that difference is genetic, I assume, in my classical liberal way, that we are better off knowing than not knowing. But my sense is that it is currently not possible to examine the question in any rigorous way right now, because almost no one will touch the subject with a ten foot pole.
And yet, the question matters. We gauge the success of our social policy by looking at macro results under the assumption that everyone (in aggregate) starts off with the same basic genetic endowment. If this is not in fact true, that would alter how we should look at that data.
To be sure, I am not clear on how one entirely overcomes the deep entwinement of society, environment, and genes in this case. I was recently talking to a friend who was mourning the way he watched the girls get dumber as they hit puberty, lose their interest in math and science, in a way that seemed much less likely to be the result of estrogen on their math receptors than the result of social conditioning about what men should find attractive in women.
Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure we could be doing better than we are now, except that people on all sides are terrified of finding any answer that doesn't confirm what they already believe.
"But hysterical revulsion is not the correct response to what is basically an empirical question."
Did the Holocaust really happen? Thats an empirical question. I'm going to hysterically react to anyone who argues that it didn't happen.
A) the historical facts of the holocaust are an empirically settled question; this is not
B) Hysterical reaction gets you nowhere, and leaves the festering sore advancing his rotten theory to infect other people, as he legitimately claims that he is being shut out of the debate. The correct approach is to calmly point out that he's a nutjob.
Personally, I believe the truth is better for humanity than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. But a lot of people seem to disagree.
The issue is not the black-white IQ gap, per se, it's how the taboo zone _around_ the entire issue that makes realism career-threatening, which therefore undermines so much sensible public policy. How else do you think we arrived at President Bush and Senator Kennedy coming up with a No Child Left Behind act that legally mandates that every student in the country score above average by 2014!
Realism was off the table in designing NCLB because realists eventually get around to admitting that they don't have a clue how to narrow the white-black IQ gap, which implies it's partly genetic, which gets you fired. So, it's best for your career to not even start down the path of realism. So, there's a wide No-Fly zone that extends far, far out from the central taboo, and it does terrible damage to much of our public policy.
I agree that "hysterical revulsion" is not the appropriate response. How about a yawn instead? I'm not sure that the question is all that interesting, or even sufficiently well-posed to permit scientific investigation.
Race is just not a well-defined concept. it is based on phenotype rather than genotype and must therefore be used with caution. As the American Anthropological Assoication puts it: "With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups."
If race is not a well-defined concept, then what sense does it make to spend time thinking about IQ's and race. Add to that the fact that IQ itself is rather dubious as a measure of innate intelligence, and he whole question of race and IQ becomes so muddled as to be hardly worthy of consideration.
Surely we have better things to do with our time.
Unfortunately, as Saletan conceded today, J. Philippe Rushton is a nutjob and is one of the scientists propagating and disseminating these theories (most famously in The Bell Curve). Now I think he is a nutjob, but many people do not. Go read the comment's at Ross's site everytime he mentions the issue. There are plenty of people who think blacks are dumber than whites, and now they have the benefit of people like Andrew Sullivan, William Saletan, Ross Douthat, and Charles Murray lending their credibility to the likes of Rushton and Flynn. The result is that believe that black people are dumber than whites--by their very nature--now has some credibility (or at least more credibility than it did have) and isn't a verboten idea to express in public discourse. Plenty of people--serious, thoughful people--have debunked the claims made in the Bell Curve (e.g., Thomas Sowell). Nevertheless, despite people like Jim Mazni announcing that there is not conclusive evidence to show that the genetics of blacks makes them dumber than whites, the meme out there is that there is conclusive evidence, and all serious criticisms are motivated by PC Dogma.
The journal that publishes much of this tripe, Mankind Quarterly, had an associate of Dr. Mengele on its board. These are not good people.
I'm a experimental scientist by training and profession, so I'm heavily biased towards empirical answers to questions. But I simply don't see how that's presently possible unless we start putting diazepam in the drinking water for everyone involved in the discussion. Too many people are simply incapable of behaving calmly and rationally.
Look at Larry Summers. All he did was postulate that there are more men in science & engineering because of differences in the sigma for aptitude; not the mean -- the width of the distribution, and he got run out of town on a rail.
Now put the mean in play, and add complications of class, discrimination, etc...it's hopeless.
Right, but you're validating my point. The only people investigating the question--which clearly is an open question--are mostly nutjobs, precisely because we've made it a career killer to come up with the wrong answer.
Dear Megan,
Please stop talking about race.
Signed,
Everyone
"we've made it a career killer to come up with the wrong answer."
Have we? I keep hearing this assertion, but I've never seen any evidence for it. Or are you saying that Hertstein died BECAUSE he wrote the Bell Curve? That surely ended his career.
Those that complain about PC hysteria regarding this issue act as if there isn't a library full of detailed, cogent criticism of these racialist ideas. There are.
These questions don't really bother me, in the same way that Larry Summers' comments on women in science and math didn't bother me (I'm a white female engineer), for a few reasons:
1) We're talking about averages, not individuals. If there are more smart white people than smart black people, or more male scientists than female scientists, I don't really care as long as no students are discouraged from excelling at school/math/science/whatever due to race or gender.
2) Raw intelligence is only one part of the "success" equation - other factors like motivation, social connections, access to quality education, and societal/familial pressure to succeed academically matter a great deal. I suspect (and I have no data to back this up here) that IQ matters a lot less (especially in the mid-range) than whether or not your family pushes you to do well in school, and whether or not your friends are serious about school.
Race is just not a well-defined concept.
It doesn't have to be well-defined to be meaningful and useful. Lots of meaningful and useful categories are not well-defined. Read Jim Manzi's post.
>Right, but you're validating my point.
As was my intent. I never said I was disagreeing...
There are a lot of reasons why we want to settle this question.
If it is true that Asians are nearly 1 SD above the mean in IQ compared to the US population (and have about the same SD), it means that China and India will be outstripping the US in any field where intelligence is required - science, engineering, medicine, etc. - once they get their educational system and general infrastructure up to Western standards. If scientists that make major breakthroughs are 1 in a million, then today the US could have 300, Europe 729, India 1120, and China 1320.
In addition, when the genes for IQ are identified, it is not unreasonable to assume that techniques for modifying these genes will be developed. Totalitarian governments have already shown that they will do harmful medical procedures on citizens to win Olympic medals. (see East Germany) Would they not do the same to produce Nobel prize winners and the economic advantages from their discoveries?
Scientific American had an article on "gene doping" in athletics that said that given what was known about gene therapy as of 2004, the 2008 Beijing Olympics could have one or more competitors that have had gene therapy to enhance their ability. Experience should tell us that if there is enough money or prestige at stake, there is someone that will try to get an advantage. If the balance of economic or military power is at stake, what country wouldn't try to enhance the population?
Add to that the fact that IQ itself is rather dubious as a measure of innate intelligence, and he whole question of race and IQ becomes so muddled as to be hardly worthy of consideration.
Um. "g", which IQ tests measure, is well known to be significantlt inheritable. It's also positively correlated with income and education. Now, what it measures includes many of the aptitudes needed for knowledge-based jobs, it's pretty important.
One item that flows from this is the crummy job US schools do at educating "talented and gifted" students. They have dropout rates comparable to the general school population.
Nevertheless, despite people like Jim Mazni announcing that there is not conclusive evidence to show that the genetics of blacks makes them dumber than whites, the meme out there is that there is conclusive evidence, and all serious criticisms are motivated by PC Dogma.
On the contrary, the prevailing meme in public discourse seems to be that the hypothesis of genetic racial differences in intelligence has been thoroughly debunked and that the consensus of expert opinion is that any apparent differences in intelligence between racial groups are purely environmental. But that is in fact a misrepresentation of the state of expert opinion, which certainly does not hold that the hypothesis has been discredited. See this article, for example.
IQ is far from the only determinant to future success. For one thing, we should remember that it's a quotient (the "Q" part) not an absolute, "you're that way forever," take on someone's abilities.
Differences in sub-cultures, & the residual effects of slavery, segregation & racism can not be denied either. "Get over it, the Civil Rights Act was signed 40 years ago" is not an adequate response, as Ms. McA. indicates when bemoaning the state of "poor" or "inner-city" schools.
Are there statistics comparing poor rural Euros to upper middle class & better Euro suburbanites/city dwellers? (Hell, drop the whole "Euro" qualification, just go w/ poor rural people compared to wealthy urbanites. Then, of course, we'd get the old "poor people are poor because they're stupid.") Might be interesting.
"It doesn't have to be well-defined to be meaningful and useful. Lots of meaningful and useful categories are not well-defined."
I don't see how this particular classification is useful here. Racial classifications arose from outward traits like skin color that have no causal link to intelligence. A useful racial classification would have to be based upon genotype, not phenotype.
If researchers want to spend time on this question, they sould be free to do so without abuse, but I doubt very much that their inquiries will yield any important results. I doubt even more that their research could have any important policy implications.
Suppose that people with one skin color have slightly higher native intelligence than people with another skin color. What does that imply about public policy? My opinions about the major policy debates of the day would be unaffected. But maybe I'm missing something.
I'm a person with a high IQ, a member of Mensa, and a Phi Beat Kappa graduate of an Ivy; but that is not who I have become at 66 years of age.
IQ is not important except at the ends of the tails. The difference in means between 'races' may be statistically significant, but one would be a fool to categorically overlook a person who 'looks' to be of African origin in favor of a person who looks European. There is a non-trivial chance that the person from the group with the lower average IQ has a higher IQ than the person from the group with the higher average IQ. There is an even better chance that the difference in IQ between the two individuals is within the confidence interval.
g is a measure of intelligence so-called. It is not a measure of character or good sense or ambition or skill. The problem lies in dealing with people as representative of genetic subgroups. It is a natural tendency perhaps in a world of small bands of hunter-gatherers to favor those whose genes are closest to one's own; but we are thousands of years beyond the hunter-gatherer world. We follow laws written by long-dead Englishmen. We buy manufactured goods made thousands of miles away by people who cannot read our script as we cannot read theirs. We ask other people thousands of miles away to write the programs that run the computers to which we entrust our economy.
In America, early colonists came up with 'Black Codes' because most bound labor came from Africa whilst most free labor came from Europe. It was then a short step to treating Black people as inferiors. Nowadays, hoever, it is well-meaning "progressives" who perpetuate invidious racism of this sort. Progressives keep telling us that African Americans do poorly in school and we must ignore their lack of educational accomplishment and hire and promote them by quota. This is a message to Black kids and their families that says don't bother trying to do well in school, you're going to fail anyway. This is a message to white racists that says, yes, you're right, Blacks are dumber than white people.
With this nonsense one can understand the anger of Clarence Thomas.
Except that, "we must ignore their lack of educational accomplishment and hire and promote them by quota" isn't true.
Suppose that people with one skin color have slightly higher native intelligence than people with another skin color. What does that imply about public policy?
Well, it suggests that obsessive racial bean-counting and trying to force every profession, company, and college to have the exact same racial makeup as the general population is a bad idea.
I'd think it was a bad idea either way, of course.
" ... Racial classifications arose from outward traits like skin color that have no causal link to intelligence ..."
Let's say hypothetically that my ancestors spent the past 20,000 years paddling around the tropical Pacific in open canoes while your ancestors spent the same time chasing wooly mammoths over frozen icecaps. Doesn't it stand to reason that you & I are going to have very different mental strengths & weaknesses -- for the same reason that we have different chemicals in our skins?
The brain is a physical bodily organ, just like the skin. Why shouldn't it also be subject to the pressures of differential evolution?
rwe,
I don't see how this particular classification is useful here.
It is useful--essential, actually-- to the study of racial discrimination, for example. You obviously can't determine whether or to what degree such discrimination is present without racial classifications.
Racial classifications arose from outward traits like skin color that have no causal link to intelligence.
So what? Yes, "skin color" may have no "causal link" to intelligence, but other genes that are correlated with genes for skin color may.
A useful racial classification would have to be based upon genotype, not phenotype.
Not at all. Since genotype is an expression of phenotype, it could be based on either.
If researchers want to spend time on this question, they sould be free to do so without abuse, but I doubt very much that their inquiries will yield any important results.
Why do you doubt it?
Suppose that people with one skin color have slightly higher native intelligence than people with another skin color. What does that imply about public policy?
If the difference is only slight, it may have no clear policy implications. But if the difference is significant, it may have implications for all sorts of public policy, from education to affirmative action.
brad wrote: Dear Megan, Please stop talking about race. Signed, Everyone
Dear Brad,
I have consulted with all of the mice in my realm, and we have determined two very important things:
1) That you do not speak on our behalf;
2) That we are capable of speaking on our own behalf.
Next time, would you please sign your class actions as "Everyone, except for anony-mouse and his minions"?
Thanks!
"If the difference is only slight, it may have no clear policy implications. But if the difference is significant, it may have implications for all sorts of public policy, from education to affirmative action."
Like what, exactly? Suppose that black Americans have lower average native intelligence than white and East Asian Americans (which I do not believe, though many commenters seem to). What does that imply about education policy and affirmative action?
My policy choices would be the same regardless. I would want to improve the schools in poor neighborhoods and would oppose affirmative action just as I do now. Native intelligence we can't change, but education and skill levels we can. I think this whole line of inquiry is just a distraction.
Like phrenologists and astrologers, a lot of people want to make wild causal inferences. Africans fared much worse than Norwegians over the centuries, therfore, ipso facto, they must be geneticaly inferior. But that doesn't follow.
"Since genotype is an expression of phenotype, it could be based on either."
I think you have that reversed. But you probably just mistyped it.
Like what, exactly? Suppose that black Americans have lower average native intelligence than white and East Asian Americans (which I do not believe, though many commenters seem to). What does that imply about education policy and affirmative action?
It might mean that we would devote additional educational resources to black children, for example, to try and compensate for the genetic disadvantage. Or it might mean that we abandon race-based affirmative action policies in employment justified on the hypothesis that discrepancies in racial representation are the result of discrimination rather than qualification.
In any case, I don't believe the scientific study of human racial differences should rest on any supposed policy implications. It's worth doing regardless of its implications for policy, just as the scientific study of human nature in general is.
Like phrenologists and astrologers, a lot of people want to make wild causal inferences.
So you keep saying. To which my response is: Like flat-earthers and creationists, a lot of people want to ignore scientific inquiry that threatens their entrenched ideology.
I think you have that reversed.
I do, yes. I meant to write that phenotype is an expression of genotype.
Mixner-
You're missing an important point--The scientific inquiry, and the results that said scientific inquiry produces, do not "threaten their entrenched ideology" (their being liberals). The reason is, the evidence is inconclusive.
This is from Stephen Jay Gould, whose persuaded me that this whole line of inquiry is not likely to be fruitful. Here he makes the same point I was making about phenotypes (or rather "folk taxonomies") and genotypes:
Maybe Gould and I are wrong. Maybe this is really a good subject for research. I certainly think people ought to be free to inquire into this, but resources are scarce. I would much rather funds go into cancer research or research on the efficacy of school vouchers.
The whole interview with Gould is here.
Like what, exactly? Suppose that black Americans have lower average native intelligence than white and East Asian Americans (which I do not believe, though many commenters seem to). What does that imply about education policy and affirmative action?
Seriously? Everything. It may go as far as to implicate entire teaching methods as being inadequate to meet the dominant learning style within a group. It may mean that affirmative action really does set people up to fail by placing them above their skillset on the basis of a false premise.
If there are differences that are real and significant, then that knowledge needs to be on the table when determining how to best acommodate that group. If the differences have some genetic basis, then a permanent rethink of means and methods may be required. Or, it may be that the basis is primarily or entirely due to a systematic lapse in early environmental factors. But even then, that's also useful information which will help with addressing the problem.
"It may go as far as to implicate entire teaching methods as being inadequate to meet the dominant learning style within a group."
So then what? At the beginning of class separate each racial group? Have a 'Jew' textbook and a 'black' textbook and an 'asian' textbook, each advocating different methods? What happens to adopted kids? Kids who are Jewish only through the matriarchy? Ambiguous groups? Mixed-race? White people born in Africa?
Lebanese?
Part of the problem is in the definition of IQ. The test has been engineered so that both men and women score, on average, 100 points. We know that women and men are better at different tasks, and the test is designed so that these differences average out. It could easily be tweaked to favour either sex.
When it comes to race (another leaky concept: why is someone with a black mother and a white father black? Why do we adopt the "not one drop" criterion), it is easy to imagine that, even if there are ability differences between the races (in itself, hard to show), the test could be adjusted to give anyone an advantage.
rwe,
Maybe Gould and I are wrong.
You are wrong. The claim that "racial classification is totally cultural" is obvious nonsense. You yourself just mentioned that racial classifications are based on, among other things, the biological trait of skin color.
I'd be cautious about citing Gould on anything. He was once a great scientist who did groundbreaking work, but towards the end of his life he became a polemical nut. As John Maynard Smith put it a few years ago, when Gould was still alive, Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."
I certainly think people ought to be free to inquire into this, but resources are scarce. I would much rather funds go into cancer research or research on the efficacy of school vouchers.
So do you also oppose all scientific research with no clear practical applications or significance, or only research on racial differences in intelligence?
You're missing an important point--The scientific inquiry, and the results that said scientific inquiry produces, do not "threaten their entrenched ideology" (their being liberals). The reason is, the evidence is inconclusive.
The evidence is inconclusive so far. They fear that further research will produce evidence of genetic racial differences in intelligence, a conclusion they don't want to be believe is true. Hence all their efforts to discourage and disparage scientific research on this issue.
" ... American racial classification is totally cultural, ..." --- Stephen Jay Gould, quoted by 'rwe'.
That's probably true as far as it goes, but the fact that Americans' concept of race is seriously screwed up doesn't prove that races are just a figment of the imagination.
Looking at the complete Gould interview that was cited, he makes the absurd statement that ~100,000 years was not enough time for the development of genetic variation except for " ... very superficial features like skin color and hair form...." That is a nonsensical claim: Just look at the amount of intra-species variation that has taken place in domesticated animals in only ~10,000 years.
Surely no one would argue that the brain of a Border Collie (for example) is wired the same way as that of a Labrador Retriever or a Terrier -- and yet they are all descended from the same wolfish ancestor within 20,000 years or less.
Gould was such a radical ideologue, I'd take everything he said with a large grain of salt. (He was a darned entertaining writer, though.)
Maybe Gould and I are wrong.
Actually, I think you're wrong in citing that Gould quote in defense of this point, or if Gould was addressing the same point at the time, he was doing the same kind of tip-toeing that prevents an honest assessment of it now.
If you have a specific genetic quirk in a family line -- for example, the breast cancer gene, baldness, or red hair -- it tends to follow that family line. The more dominant it is, the more it expresses itself in the purer bloodlines where copies are received from both parents.
The citation of Woods, Campanella, and Powell exactly proves the point. Yes, these are all identified as "black" because any recent black ancestrage in the bloodline tends to produce strong phenotypical traits. On the other hand, people with very fair skin and unusually dark or unusually red hair are often identified as Irish; skin folds that give the illusion of slanted eyes quickly marks someone as having East Asian ancestry; and Middle Eastern and Mexican feature sets are also very strong and take a couple generations of interbreeding to thin down. So I'm not sure what that statement proves.
Meanwhile, if there WERE a genetic component to intelligence, and African, Western European, and East Asian genetics respectively trended low, median, and high, then the observed results would be compeltely consistent: bloodlines that have maintained "purity" would also maintain the trend, while mixed bloodlines would tend to produce averages.
That, of course, continues to assume that environment isn't the dominant factor, which it may well be. Being raised in a positive early childhood environment under a Confuscian or a Judeo-Christian value system may tend to produce significantly higher intelligences irregardless of race, while having a crack-whore mother, an absent father, and poor childhood nutrition may set a person up for failure, again irrespective of race -- with the results tending to follow racial lines due to historical factors and obsolete taboos on intermarriage.
"They fear that further research will produce evidence of genetic racial differences in intelligence, a conclusion they don't want to be believe is true."
I don't really see whats wrong with that. I do, however, thing something is terribly wrong for the opposite desire to be held.
I don't really see whats wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong in itself with hoping that an empirical proposition is false rather than true. There is something very wrong with discouraging or disparaging scientific research into that proposition because you fear it will be confirmed rather than falsified. I can think of a few reasonable exceptions to this for particular individuals in particular situations, but it certainly doesn't apply to the scientific study of racial differences.
Being raised in a positive early childhood environment under a Confuscian or a Judeo-Christian value system may tend to produce significantly higher intelligences ...
Ha ha ha. Good one. As Bertrand Russell said, "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." In America today, it's hard to think of a community more hostile to reason and learning than devout Christians...
Mixner,
I think it would be better to say fundamentalist Christians and not devout Christians. Notwithstading such things as Creationism, I think being raised under Judeo-Christian value system does help create the needed skills for learning.
No, it's not only "fundamentalist" Christians. It applies to devout Christians in general. Perhaps its most common manifestation is the nonsensical assertion that religious faith is a "way of knowing" that complements or supercedes scientific and rational inquiry. The confusion of belief with knowledge, of wishful thinking with evidence, is at the core of "the Judeo-Christian value system."
Wow. So Mixner hates Christians and he's a racist. Who are you, Tom Buchanan?
"Actually, I think you're wrong in citing that Gould quote in defense of this point, or if Gould was addressing the same point at the time, he was doing the same kind of tip-toeing that prevents an honest assessment of it now."
I think you would profit from reading Gould's thoughts on the subject. He was a sharp critic of precisely the sort of race and IQ research that many on this thread seem to be advocating. And his reasoning was the same as mine: first, the usual racial classifications are problematic and second, IQ is a dubious measure of innate intelligence. Thus reasearch that relies the usual, flawed racial classifications and on IQ as an indicator of innate ability is so muddled from the outset that it isn't likely to produce anything valuable.
I think Gould also shared some of rickm's concerns. This was, after all, a line of thinking the Nazis found appealing: "Blacks fell behind not due to bad luck but due to their own inherent inferiority, making them an 'inferior race,' best suited to slave labor." Anything the Nazis found so congenial is at least suspect.
As for racial classifications being "totally cultural" I imagine Gould was exaggerating a little. I think what he meant was that they are not realiable indicators of underlying genetic differences. So Colon Powell gets classified as "black" even though he has a mixed heritage. Indeed, it would be hard to think of a sensible racial classification scheme that would find a place for him at all.
Megan, to the extent that reputable science shies away from these questions, it's not because of societal pressure. It's because they understand that we don't now have the tools to make meaningful measurements that can distinguish genetic and environmental effects.
We don't know what IQ is measuring. Is it intelligence, or some culturally determined ability to succeed in society?
We don't know whether g, a statistical artifact and not an observed variable, exists. Thurstone showed that g disappears with only a few very basic alterations to the statistical model. Shalizi showed that g can be interpreted as consistent with a single-variate intelligence model or a multi-variate one.
We can't explain the Flynn effect. While a disparity of perhaps 15 points between average white and black IQ has held constant, average IQ of everyone has risen by much more than 15 points over the last century.
The significant point, however, is that we don't have effective ways of answering these questions. Society could line up 100% behind intelligence researchers, but it wouldn't make there results any more meaningful.
By the way, I think the writer of the post you linked oversimplifies the notion of heritability. Here's a more thorough discussion.
Being raised in a positive early childhood environment under a Confuscian or a Judeo-Christian value system may tend to produce significantly higher intelligences irregardless of race
Hindus score higher than Christians. Though not higher than Jews. Perhaps being raised in a Jewish household causes higher intelligence than being raised in a Christian one? Or will you say that's just genetic, since secular Jews also score high? Or maybe being raised in a secular household causes higher intelligence? Or maybe having higher intelligence causes one to be secular?
Data mush. All conclusions will merely reflect prior prejudice. Move to topic where meaningful things can be said.
On the one hand, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe group differences in measured IQ are both genetic and important. On the other hand, there were theoretical and empirical reasons to believe similar ideas in the past that turned out not be the case. In addition, some of the most fervent advocates for the claim are would-be totalitarians, which makes adopting the idea much riskier than skepticism.
The above paragraph also applies to global warming.
I really, really hate this discussion.
1) Realistically, it's going to be impossible to separate social and environment influences from genetic ones.
2) From what I've read, there's some indication that the gap between blacks and whites has been closing within the last few decades. How does that square with the notion that the gap is the result of 100,000 years of evolution making white people smarter?
3) Even if you accept that, say, whites are on average 5% smarter--so what? Does anyone here seriously think they could craft a public policy that would somehow take that 5% into account and actually work better than a policy which ignored it?
4) Likewise, does genetic influence somehow obviate the effects of racism? (Of course, I'm sure plenty of people think it's evidence that racism itself has no effects anymore, and that every woe befalling African Americans is the result of the fact that they as a group score a bit lower than whites on IQ tests.)
5) Frankly, this whole fuckin' discussion strikes me as essentially racist. I mean, we're basically debating whether we can employ racial classifications in some way to optimize public policy around intelligence, while ignoring the fact that if such optimization were really our goal, we'd cut all this slightly smarter on average asians vs. still pretty smart whites vs. maybe a little dumber blacks crap and just make the distinction of fucking stupid people vs. really smart people. It's ridiculous. We're not talking about making policy for any other collection of 40 million people that average mid-90s IQ scores--no, conveniently, it's just the collection of 40 million that have been abused for centuries on account of their supposed inferiority. That, I think, was Gould's point. We make the racial distinction because it's been made in the past, not because it's particularly useful for predicting intelligence.
This is from Thomas Sowell's critique of "The Bell Curve":
When IQ shifts around as much as it has, it seems clear that it must be heavily influenced by enviroment and not merely by natural ability. Sowell points to the IQ's of Jews--less than a hundred years ago they were so low "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.'" Now, of course, Jews score well above the average. All of this makes it fairly clear that any research that uses IQ as a measure of inate ability is specious, as Tom T and Matt argue above.
"5) Frankly, this whole fuckin' discussion strikes me as essentially racist. I mean, we're basically debating whether we can employ racial classifications in some way to optimize public policy around intelligence, while ignoring the fact that if such optimization were really our goal, we'd cut all this slightly smarter on average asians vs. still pretty smart whites vs. maybe a little dumber blacks crap and just make the distinction of fucking stupid people vs. really smart people. It's ridiculous. We're not talking about making policy for any other collection of 40 million people that average mid-90s IQ scores--no, conveniently, it's just the collection of 40 million that have been abused for centuries on account of their supposed inferiority. That, I think, was Gould's point. We make the racial distinction because it's been made in the past, not because it's particularly useful for predicting intelligence."
--Matt
"On the one hand, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe group differences in measured IQ are both genetic and important. On the other hand, there were theoretical and empirical reasons to believe similar ideas in the past that turned out not be the case. In addition, some of the most fervent advocates for the claim are would-be totalitarians, which makes adopting the idea much riskier than skepticism.
The above paragraph also applies to global warming.
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | November 30, 2007 1:48 AM
Yet another way to divide the flock, we should wake up. Hopefully, before we get back to nose length( see: Hutu-Tutsi/Rwanda ).
Sailer's point, here: "That’s not the structure of the controversy. The structure of the controversy is: research group A, resourced by fund X with bias M, saying this is so, while a mighty host of journo-school grads, law-school grads, and liberal-arts department heads — yes, and even a few careerist, tenure- or office-seeking biologists and money-seeking, PC-compliant pop-science authors — shriek YOU MUSTN’T TALK ABOUT THAT! YOU ARE BAD PEOPLE! That’s the structure of the controversy."
-applies far beyond the simple bounds of this discussion..
jbb's anecdote: "The last time I was asked to speak I was on a panel, all educators but me, to 200 kids in the program. I spoke last. My statement was very straightforward- "The average car salesman in the region makes 70k and the highest paid makes 250k. None have a degree. They have drive, ambition and the ability to relate to and communicate with all types of people. There are thousands of jobs like that where a degree is not needed. A skilled machinist can make 80k easily and a degree is not needed. Explore other options. " I was never asked to speak again."
-is hardly singular, the last thing these entrenched bureaucracies are looking for is any kind of objective truth..
Public policy currently takes race into account.
The existence of a genetic difference in IQ between races is really an argument for not taking race into account when making public policy.
Many people in this discussion believe that people should be treated as individuals based on their ability and not based on their race. Current public policy DOES NOT do this.
We have many race-based programs and policies that are based on the assumption that all differences in outcome are due to discrimination. If there are real genetic differences in intelligence among the races, regardless of what they are, then these policies are not helping and possibly doing harm.
The truth is that individuals should be treated as individuals and public policy should do this. Opportunity should be equalized, not outcome.
I would dearly love to see all government forms eliminate the "race" entry. Private employers are forbidden to ask about race. Government agencies routinely ask about race.
EI
Matt said:
I really, really hate this discussion.
1) Realistically, it's going to be impossible to separate social and environment influences from genetic ones.
Why can't we separate some of the effects? Are you saying we will never find any genes related to intelligence? We have already found some.
2) From what I've read, there's some indication that the gap between blacks and whites has been closing within the last few decades. How does that square with the notion that the gap is the result of 100,000 years of evolution making white people smarter?
Be quantitative, a small amount of closing is not inconsistent with evolution. Also if you confident that we can accurately measure the small amount of closing, you should be very confident in the measurement of the large gap.
3) Even if you accept that, say, whites are on average 5% smarter--so what? Does anyone here seriously think they could craft a public policy that would somehow take that 5% into account and actually work better than a policy which ignored it?
1 Standard deviation is a lot more than 5%. I think its better to think about the difference in percentiles, ie if someone were at the 50th percentile of the white distribution, were would they be on the black or asian distributions, and vice versa. Several public policy ideas, stop associating differences in outcomes with proof of discrimination. Realize complicated tax laws, with incentives to shape behavior may have disparate impact.
4) Likewise, does genetic influence somehow obviate the effects of racism? (Of course, I'm sure plenty of people think it's evidence that racism itself has no effects anymore, and that every woe befalling African Americans is the result of the fact that they as a group score a bit lower than whites on IQ tests.)
Of course racism will still exist, but be quantitative, how much is racism affecting the outcome. Every woe befalling an individual African Americans is not due to racism.
5) Frankly, this whole fuckin' discussion strikes me as essentially racist. I mean, we're basically debating whether we can employ racial classifications in some way to optimize public policy around intelligence, while ignoring the fact that if such optimization were really our goal, we'd cut all this slightly smarter on average asians vs. still pretty smart whites vs. maybe a little dumber blacks crap and just make the distinction of fucking stupid people vs. really smart people. It's ridiculous. We're not talking about making policy for any other collection of 40 million people that average mid-90s IQ scores--no, conveniently, it's just the collection of 40 million that have been abused for centuries on account of their supposed inferiority. That, I think, was Gould's point. We make the racial distinction because it's been made in the past, not because it's particularly useful for predicting intelligence.
I would prefer to make policy for everyone, there are plenty of poor low IQ whites who could benefit from policy that doesn't assume we are all equal.
I would prefer to make policy for everyone, there are plenty of poor low IQ whites who could benefit from policy that doesn't assume we are all equal.
Posted by benp | November 30, 2007 11:53 AM
"I would prefer to make policy for everyone"
how telling...
I wish everyone would get off the hobbyhorse of black=leftendofthebellcurve.
The problem, ultimately, is that there *is* a left end of the bell curve. It doesn't matter if the people involved are black, white, or purple with pink polka dots.
It is foolish to advocate giving everyone a college education. The left end of the curve needs more skills training, while the right end needs more intellectual education. The mix changes with the student's abilities. The mantra of "there are no wrong answers" helps encourage inquiry, but is dangerous when learning how to pour concrete, weld structural steel, wire or plumb buildings, and so on.
We've lost sight of this fact with our "everybody is the same" idiology. We lose the real contributions people can make when we apply one-size-fits-all policies like NCLB. The quality of our plumbing and wiring deteriorates, too.
My daughter is quite bright. My son is autistic, and we may never know how bright the light is under that bushel basket. We do *not* treat them the same. That would be a crime.
We have many race-based programs and policies that are based on the assumption that all differences in outcome are due to discrimination. If there are real genetic differences in intelligence among the races, regardless of what they are, then these policies are not helping and possibly doing harm.
Yeah, the Sully argument.
It's kinda bullshit though. You're just arguing that our efforts at gauging the effects of racism may be off by a couple degrees, owing to the fact of a genetic intelligence gap between races. Unless you think that the intelligence gap accounts for the entire difference in outcome, it's sort of a moot point. And I don't really see how you could argue that in good faith at this point, considering how flakey IQ is (as someone else pointed out, the Flynn effect suggests a strong environmental component to IQ scores), how wide the achievement gap is compared to the supposed IQ gap, and the fact that we're barely 40 years out of the Jim Crow era.
I have two comments on this thread.
1: When Erica posted an allusion to Larry Summers' comments on women in elite math, she may have thought that he's claiming that women are less capable on the average, but he was claiming that we should investigate the question as to whether men have a higer standard deviation. Or maybe she did understand the distinction. It makes sense that men should have a higher standard deviation in measures that may lead to extreme reproductive success. A gene that gives a male a 5% chance of getting him inside any woman's pants to the tune of fathering a hundred children, and a 95% chance of turning him into a schlameil who is essentially certain to die childless, is a gene that will spread in the population. There is no analogous possibility for women, who can never have more than perhaps a dozen children even if they are among the most reproductively fit women ever.
2: In this episode of This American Life, act 2, the protagonist, a sex reassignment patient, claims to have developed a sudden interest in math when she/he started receiving testosterone. It's an anecdote, I'm skeptical, but it's amusing.
-dk
The Flynn effect may be an illusion. There are skills involved in taking standardized tests. As more and more people take more and more standardized tests they will naturally get better at them.
Whether one race is genetically more intelligent than another race is a question that should be decided by level-headed scientists.
Whites--and others--should be in favor of segregation no matter what the answer to the racial IQ question is. Finding an appropriate mate for oneself is an absolutely essential condition of happiness for almost everybody. Since I have never met a white man who is attracted to black females, the demise of white females as a result of integration will mean that the pool of potential eligible mates will continue to shrink for white men. While most white men I talk to are shocked by such racist revelations, none of them are willing to even go out on a date with a black female.
Jeff-
Judging that the men you meet don't get much, i'd say they are being picky.
The Flynn effect may be an illusion. There are skills involved in taking standardized tests. As more and more people take more and more standardized tests they will naturally get better at them.
Right, that's one of the environmental components I was referring to.
You know, I hate it when I agree with Rickm.
"Since I have never met a white man who is attracted to black females, the demise of white females as a result of integration will mean that the pool of potential eligible mates will continue to shrink for white men. While most white men I talk to are shocked by such racist revelations, none of them are willing to even go out on a date with a black female."
Man, you really don't get out much, huh?
Matt,
1) Realistically, it's going to be impossible to separate social and environment influences from genetic ones.
No it isn't. Twin studies and adoption studies, for example, provide a useful method for distinguishing environmental from genetic influences. This is true not just for the question of differences in intelligence between racial groups, but for the issue of genetic vs. environmental effects on human traits and behaviors in general. And once we identify genes that affect intelligence, we could measure the incidence of those genes in different groups.
2) From what I've read, there's some indication that the gap between blacks and whites has been closing within the last few decades. How does that square with the notion that the gap is the result of 100,000 years of evolution making white people smarter?
Yes, this is the Flynn Effect. It's an interesting phenomenon, but it doesn't mean there is no genetic component to racial differences in intelligence.
3) Even if you accept that, say, whites are on average 5% smarter--so what? Does anyone here seriously think they could craft a public policy that would somehow take that 5% into account and actually work better than a policy which ignored it?
If the average difference is small, it may not have any strong implications for public policy. But if the difference is significant, it may have implications for many kinds of policy, as I and others have already mentioned. But regardless of policy implications, it's an interesting empirical question that deserves to be answered.
4) Likewise, does genetic influence somehow obviate the effects of racism?
No. But it may account for some of the socioeconomic differences between racial groups.
5) Frankly, this whole fuckin' discussion strikes me as essentially racist.
Frankly, that statement strikes me as utterly stupid. If you think the pursuit of empirical knowledge is racist, your conception of racism is ludicrous.
A growing mixed race generation will save us from ourselves.
rwe,
When IQ shifts around as much as it has, it seems clear that it must be heavily influenced by enviroment and not merely by natural ability.
This strawman yet again. I haven't seen anyone here argue that there is no environmental contribution to racial differences in IQ test scores. If anyone has expressed support for that position, I will cheerfully tell them that their assertion is wildly implausible. The issue is whether there is also a genetic contribution. The prevailing expert opinion among psychologists, sociologists, educators and cognitive scientists seems to be that there probably is a genetic contribution.
rwe,
And his reasoning was the same as mine: first, the usual racial classifications are problematic and second, IQ is a dubious measure of innate intelligence.
We've been over this. Yes, racial classifications are "problematic." Yes, the boundaries of racial categories are fuzzy. So are the boundaries of lots of other categories, even biological ones, like species and sex. The fact that a category is not well-defined does not mean it is not meaningful or useful. Do you believe the fact that racial classifications are "problematic" means that we should just abandon all attempts to detect, measure or understand racism and racial discrimination? Those questions obviously depend on "problematic" racial classifications just as questions of racial differences in intelligence do.
As for IQ test scores, as others have already pointed out, and as Jim Manzi explains in his piece (have you read it yet?), whether you call the trait it measures "intelligence" or something else, it seems to predict positive life outcomes in school performance, work performance, and health.
As I recall when I read "The Bell Curve", East Asians and European descended Jews generally had higher IQ's than the average white American. As an average white American, I'm not terribly offended.
The first step in the problem solving process, is to recognize the problem. If we refuse to recognize what is apparently a visible problem, it seems to me that we're acting in a racist manner. And, I suspect that the PC crowd wouldn't want to be described as racists.
George-
Those groups you mentioned did not have higher IQ's. They just scored higher on IQ tests. Big, massive, difference that those like Saletan like to gloss over. All that says is that East Asians, Europeans, and Jews are better at taking IQ tests than blacks and Latinos. Because this is a function of education when viewed in the aggregate, there should be no surprises.
"The prevailing expert opinion among psychologists, sociologists, educators and cognitive scientists seems to be that there probably is a genetic contribution."
That is certainly not the prevailing expert opinion among sociologists and educators. Among psychologists and cog sci folks, I'm pretty confident that the prevailing expert opinion is that there probably is a genetic contribution to intelligence. The idea that the "prevailing expert opinion among" among those two groups is that there are (partly) genetically based racial differences in intelligence - I am extremely dubious about this. Extremely. But you are welcome to make your case.
" If we refuse to recognize what is apparently a visible problem, it seems to me that we're acting in a racist manner."
Does everyone see what George is trying to do here?
"The prevailing expert opinion among psychologists, sociologists, educators and cognitive scientists seems to be that there probably is a genetic contribution."
Mixner, I don't object to that at all. I think its highly likely that genetics are an important determinant of intellectual ability (along with nutrition, education, etc...) I'm just arguing that IQ is not a good measure of genetic endowment--precisely because it is heavily influenced by environmental factors (as the dramtic changes in IQs of American Jews over the last century makes clear).
To figure out what correlation exists between race and inborn intelligence, one would have to get a good measure of inborn intelligence and, as even you now seem to be condeding, IQ ain't it.
Now, as for Manzi's article, I'm not sure why you keep citing it. He argues that there are basically two approaches to the question. One is to understand the underlying physical mechanism by which genes determine intelligence. And he makes clear that we are nowhere near understanding that.
The other is to use econometrics and "natural experiments" (to use IQ as a proxy variable and control for other relevant variables, if I understand him correctly) about which Manzi is not sanguine. As he puts it, "resolution will almost certainly require advances in understanding of the physical mechanism of intelligence, not more clever econometric analysis."
A lot of people posting above seem to be convinced that there is a large genetic difference between the races. Manzi essentially says there's no justification for such certainty. As he puts it, quoting the APA approvingly, “At present, this question has no scientific answer.”
Like Manzi, I don't know whether race and intelligence are linked in a causal way. Nor do I think it's a very important line of inquiry (no more than, say, asking whether redheads are more intelligent than blonds). Like Manzi again, I think researchers are nowhere near answering the question. And further I would add that, even if they did, their results would have no impact on my opinions on public policy. So with that, I withdraw from the field, though I will read any further criticism of my posts. It's been an interesting debate.
That is certainly not the prevailing expert opinion among sociologists and educators.
From the Wikipedia entry on race and intelligence:
In other words, the plurality of respondents, 45%, believe the causes of black-white racial differences in IQ are both environmental and genetic. This is three times the number who believe the differences are entirely caused by environmental factors.
Now.... Where's the actual evidence for this? That the gap is genetically determined AND heritable?
rwe,
I'm just arguing that IQ is not a good measure of genetic endowment
Yet another strawman. As far as I'm aware, no one here has asserted that "IQ is a good measure of genetic endowment." The hypothesis is that some part of the racial differences in IQ are genetic rather than environmental. We don't know how large the genetic component is.
To figure out what correlation exists between race and inborn intelligence, one would have to get a good measure of inborn intelligence and, as even you now seem to be condeding, IQ ain't it.
To repeat: Whatever you want to call the characteristic that IQ tests measure--"intelligence," "innate intelligence," "ability to pass IQ tests," or whatever else it may be--IQ test scores predict many life outcomes. Those who score higher tend to do better in school, better in work, have better health, and so on. Furthermore, some part of the differences in IQ scores seem to be genetic, so some of what causes whites to do better than blacks at school, at work, etc., seems to be genetic. It does not seem to be just a matter of environmental differences.
Now, as for Manzi's article, I'm not sure why you keep citing it.
Because he raises and responds to many of the talking points you have made here.
Mixter-
"Furthermore, some part of the differences in IQ scores seem to be genetic, so some of what causes whites to do better than blacks at school, at work, etc., seems to be genetic. It does not seem to be just a matter of environmental differences."
You're just asserting, or speculating, on this.
"seems to be" is not science.
You're just asserting, or speculating, on this.
I just cited a study of expert opinion that supports it.
"seems to be" is not science.
Nonsense. Every scientific theory is a statement of what "seems to be" true.
Seems I inadvertently posted an rorschach test and got a strong positive for personal prejudices. To review:
Mixner wrote: Ha ha ha. Good one. As Bertrand Russell said, "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." In America today, it's hard to think of a community more hostile to reason and learning than devout Christians...
Doomsday cults, neonazis, 9/11 Truthers, the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, the rap music industry, and the Democratic Underground all slipped past your incisively judgmental nose, did they?
Interestingly, all I referred to was the "Judeo-Christian value system". You know, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, those kinds of things. Western Europe (thoughly highly secularized now) and the United States (though increasingly secularized) incorporated very large portions of Judeo-Christian tradition and principle into their law and culture, taught it to successive generations, and are very wealthy and properous today, in part, because of that tradition.
As for the Bertrand Russel quote, that's the kind of irrational non sequitur that one arrives at when a mind has been slowly consumed by a virulent prejudice. One might just as well thumb through The Joy of Cooking and then declare that "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in that book about how to check the automatic transmission fluid level in a '99 Buick LeSabre."
It isn't there because it doesn't fall within the scope of what is being addressed. In the case of the gospels, the message is that mankind stands in perfect equality before God. No amount of intelligence will save a man who refuses God's offer, and no lack of intelligence hinders the man who accepts it. Interestingly, this is exactly the kind of equality that men of all stripes are trying to find throughout history, but repeatedly reject whenever it comes packaged with accountability.
But that is straying off-topic. Next up:
Mixner wrote: No, it's not only "fundamentalist" Christians. It applies to devout Christians in general. Perhaps its most common manifestation is the nonsensical assertion that religious faith is a "way of knowing" that complements or supercedes scientific and rational inquiry. The confusion of belief with knowledge, of wishful thinking with evidence, is at the core of "the Judeo-Christian value system."
Perfect example of what I mean by a mind being consumed by a virulent prejudice. The zip-tie that cuts off all access to ideas in a particular realm is pulled tightly around your own neck by your own hands, yet you don't even notice it while pronouncing broad judgements against the alleged close-mindedness of others.
In any case, this is clearly not the productive area of the debate. I suggest we abandon it if the above statements are typical of contributions that will be made to it.
brooksfoe wrote: Hindus score higher than Christians. Though not higher than Jews. Perhaps being raised in a Jewish household causes higher intelligence than being raised in a Christian one? Or will you say that's just genetic, since secular Jews also score high? Or maybe being raised in a secular household causes higher intelligence? Or maybe having higher intelligence causes one to be secular?
Hold the phone, where I was talking about IQ or other narrowly-specific (and potentially faulty) measures of intelligence? We can measure general outcomes in social, cultural, economic, and political areas, and posit that some sort of intelligence contributed to it, without specifying that it MUST be the ability to perform a certain type of association exercise in under 00:01:30 per question.
Or are you, in fact, positing the genetic explanation is the strong one?
Data mush. All conclusions will merely reflect prior prejudice. Move to topic where meaningful things can be said.
Already there. How about catching up? ;-)
anonymouse,
Doomsday cults, neonazis, 9/11 Truthers, the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, the rap music industry, and the Democratic Underground all slipped past your incisively judgmental nose, did they?
No.
You know, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, those kinds of things. Western Europe (thoughly highly secularized now) and the United States (though increasingly secularized) incorporated very large portions of Judeo-Christian tradition and principle into their law and culture, taught it to successive generations, and are very wealthy and properous today, in part, because of that tradition.
As I said, the fundamental "value" of the "Judeo-Christian value system" is that knowledge may be acquired through religious faith. There's nothing intelligent about that value. It is nonsensical. It is the antithesis of intelligent inquiry. Two men make two mutually contradictory claims of truth on the basis of their respective religious faiths. Which, if either, is correct? How can you tell?
We can measure general outcomes in social, cultural, economic, and political areas, and posit that some sort of intelligence contributed to it,...
That's right. The intelligence that is manifest in rational and scientific inquiry. Not the wishful thinking of religious faith. Not the utterances of prophets and popes. Not the sacred scriptures of Christianity or Judaism.
Megan,
To be sure, I am not clear on how one entirely overcomes the deep entwinement of society, environment, and genes in this case. I was recently talking to a friend who was mourning the way he watched the girls get dumber as they hit puberty, lose their interest in math and science, in a way that seemed much less likely to be the result of estrogen on their math receptors than the result of social conditioning about what men should find attractive in women.
I remember seeing this forty years ago when I was that age. I now teach honors 11th grade physics in a very ordinary high school in a very ordinary Boston suburb. This year, almost two thirds of my students are females. It's amazing how things can change.
I'm not lumping a bunch of "behaviors" together. I'm talking about common type of male homosexual orientation that is said to affect something between one and five percent of American males. I don't think this orientation has much to do with prison behavior, etc. The idea that there is such a class of people is pretty standard liberal dogma, although I don't claim to be an expert on it myself. Since I don't believe these people choose their orientation, I think the orientation must have some other cause or causes. And since the idea that this would not be a successful evolutionary adaptation is pretty natural, one wonders if it might be a result of an infection of some kind.
Oops...posted comment on wrong blog. Ack!!
"A survey was conducted in 1987"
It is now 2007. In 1987 kids in North America were buying an exciting new Nintendo game called "The Legend of Zelda". People were amused by a series of shorts on the Tracey Ullman Show involving a dysfunctional, oddly yellowish family called the Simpsons. President Ronald Reagan was calling on Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'.
We also don't know (from wikipedia) in what proportion members of the different groups responded, and whether there were any significant differences between groups.
Additionally, as the quote kinda points out, none of these professions necessarily involve any knowledge or understanding of genetics, although that's a separate point.
Another issue entirely: everyone understands that many folks are seizing upon the 'the Black race is genetically dumber' hypothesis because it could be seen to support certain policy preferences - specifically, ending affirmative action, as well as some kinds of social spending- right? Of course, this wouldn't actually follow, since even folks like J. Phillippe 'blacks have little brains and big genitals' Rushton concede that there would be a significant environmental component, but of course, logic rarely matters when it comes to the question of race matters.
"Let's say hypothetically that my ancestors spent the past 20,000 years paddling around the tropical Pacific in open canoes while your ancestors spent the same time chasing wooly mammoths over frozen icecaps. Doesn't it stand to reason that you & I are going to have very different mental strengths & weaknesses"
Of course, no population on Earth has spend the past 20,000 years chasing mammoths over frozen icecaps, sadly (I can put up with no flying car or robot maid, but where's my pet cloned baby mammoth!? It's the frickin' 21st century, for goodness sakes!) This hypothetical actually rests on very vague, thin ideas about supposed tropical paradises, as well as an over-century old repeating strain of pop-culture racial thinking about hardy Nordics and lazy blacks. Realistically, people all over the world have faced pretty much the same basic challenges - surviving childhood, fighting off disease, getting enough to eat (and not being eaten), getting along with other people . . . It's not at all clear that the impressive variation in ways and places of doing these actually selects for different cognitive abilities (as opposed for adult ability to digest milk, or skin color, or etc.). Indeed, if one wanted to spend time idly speculating about what stands to reason, one could note that (non-high latitude) Eurasian populations have the longest history of agriculture, and of peasant farming, so that a more accurate picture isn't of stalwart and crafty mammoth hunters, but of stunted, malnourished peasants stumbling out to the fields for yet another century of simple, predictable and repetitive labor. Meanwhile - as Jared Diamond snarkily suggested re: New Guinea - many other populations were far more engaged in hunting and gathering, or a mix of agriculture, hunting, and gathering, for a lot longer, so they spent more of their time tracking and outsmarting prey, or figuring out which nearly-identical dead-looking stick marked buried roots full of life-giving water, etc, rather than matching wits with sheep or wheat.
Again, I think this is way, way too simplistic, but if that's the road you want to take . . .
(It is amusing that for a number of centuries much of Western Europe engaged in a social practice that in theory could have served to remove a fair proportion of 'academically-inclined' men and women from the breeding population - but yet again, for various reasons, it seems unlikely that this had any significant effect.)
"Look at Larry Summers. All he did was postulate that there are more men in science & engineering because of differences in the sigma for aptitude; not the mean -- the width of the distribution, and he got run out of town on a rail."
. . . last seen fleeing on the back of a small-to medium bird of the family Rallidae, typically found in dense vegetation, often near water . . .
However, it is true that in some ways, Summers is an old coot . . .
. . . Of course, more seriously, Matt B's quote doesn't really accurately describe what happened, anymore than 'Saletan wrote a brave, well-researched, and carefully considered piece on race and IQ' would in this case. Do we need to go over the whole 'Summers being an arrogant, self-satisfied fool with minimal people skills' thing again?
"How else do you think we arrived at President Bush and Senator Kennedy coming up with a No Child Left Behind act that legally mandates that every student in the country score above average by 2014! Realism was off the table in designing NCLB because realists eventually get around to admitting that they don't have a clue how to narrow the white-black IQ gap, which implies it's partly genetic, which gets you fired."
This is a very, very strange interpretation of NCLB. Granted, it is relatively incompatible with the idea that brown people are genetically inferior, and I guess we can credit the geniuses behind it with at least not arguing for race-based homelands, sterilization, or any other of the all-too-familiar solutions. In truth, though, a more realistic explanation probably involves an unwillingness to confront many of real issues - political, economic, social, and cultural - of American education -including de facto segregation, the geography of poverty, massive inequalities in funding and resources, etc. - an explanation that holds regardless of whether or not one gets off thinking that black people are just inherently kinda slow.
"and since the idea that this would not be a successful evolutionary adaptation is pretty natural, "
Actually, one can make an argument that homosexuality may in fact be part of a 'successful evolutionary adaptation', - perhaps for reducing conflict, or enhancing survival of close relatives, etc. (Correctly or not, I have absolutely no idea). Alternately (or concurrently), some research suggests it may be more along the lines of natural variation relating to development. Regardless, "a result of an infection of some kind" doesn't seem to have any scientific support. While perhaps not inherently impossible (I assume, you haing commented in media res, that you're thinking of fetal development, not of catching gayness from some guy on the bus), talking about being gay as an "infection" can suggest a rather ugly mindset. I'm sure this isn't what you're getting at.
Sigh. If people were really interested in the science, they'd know there is no such thing as race - allele frequencies vary smoothly from geographical region to geographical region. In fact, that's the basis of tracking historical human migratory patterns (historical in the 'out of Africa' sense.) For example, sickle-cell anemia is _not_ correlated with being black. It is correlated with living in certain climates and environments where having the trait was historically advantageous, and thus large proportions of certain Semitic populations have this trait as well. Further:
Iow, the should-be-easily-understood observation that various simpler traits shouldn't be confused with intelligence.
Sigh. If people were really interested in the science, they'd know there is no such thing as race
Okay. We can now get rid of all those boxes on forms that require us to pick a race. And we can save lots of money not gathering data or doing studies on black-white differences in this and that.
What's that you say? Race doesn't exist but perceptions of race exist--and they are so powerful and so pervasive that we have to classify every American into a small number of racial boxes, assume that which box someone is in tells us very, very important things about his or her experiences, and treat people differently depending on which box they are in.
I'm glad that's been cleared up.
No, I don't say that, you moron. I said - quite clearly, quite unequivicably - that there is no scientific basis for race.
Do you have any idea what an allele or an allele frequency is? If not, I suggest you have no place in this discussion; we have quite enough willful ignorance as it is. Please don't return until you have educated yourself on what is, after all, basic, basic science.
SOV,
some peep need more help than others, in this case 877 RENT-A-CLU came up with:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Allele
"we have quite enough willful ignorance as it is", no question, though, if it wasn't for all the 'fodder', the demagogues wouldn't be nearly so numerous..
I agree with Megan that we need to be able to address this issue, if only because we will never find solutions to persistent problems if we are unable to ask questions.
I see a lot of evidence of mindless adherence to ideology in some of the comments here. The fact is, the question of intelligence is very complicated, but there are without doubt both genetic and environmental components. Wouldn't it be best for everyone if we tried to figure out what exactly is going on, and try to figure out how best to maximize everyone's potential?
We could improve teaching methods and perhaps even use genetic engineering to improve future generations - IF we know what works and what doesn't work.
In any case, when having this discussion, there are a few things I always try to point out:
(1) We are individuals above all else. Even if one group has a lower intelligence - on average - that says nothing about an individual. If a person with an IQ of 200 comes from a group with a lower than average intelligence, that individual's IQ remains 200.
(2) Intelligence is important, but it's not the only thing. Hard work, kindness, creativity, tenacity, and many other factors are also important to success, and can contribute to success even in the absence of high intelligence.
(3) Certainly racial categories are a mess, but to pretend that there are no differences between different groups of people, each with their own genetic history and common (though not universal) traits, is also nonsense. Likewise, if you believe intelligence is entirely environmental, why haven't you taught your dog physics? All the same, see point number 1 - we are all individuals.
(4) Our measurements of IQ are still pretty shaky. For all we know, it could be that Africans (or at least one subset, as Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined) are the smartest "race", and Jews the stupidest. If this research had been done 1000 years ago, Europeans would probably have been judged some of the stupidest people on earth. This should advise our research, but not prevent it.
(5) In any case, all humans are pretty intelligent, as animals go, and should be afforded basic dignity and respect - even if they, individually, have a relatively low (for humans) intelligence.
(6) It is important to find out the truth, because if we continue to base our actions on ideology instead of knowledge, we will continue to make the same mistakes that have already condemned millions to poverty and despair.
(7) Just a reminder: we learn primarily through trial and error. That's not trial OR error, it's trial AND error. If we aren't willing to make mistakes, we'll never learn a damned thing. The wisest people aren't necessarily the smartest - just the most experienced. Of course, intelligence may affect how MANY mistakes one has to make, or whether one can learn from the mistakes of others.
Incidentally, I've said all this to some of my black friends, and none of them have had a problem with it. Occasionally they were a bit surprised when I explained to them that under the (revised) "one drop rule", they are now White, and as responsible for slavery as I am, but they mostly took it pretty well.
Also on a different note (my post is getting rather long here) I have also been saddened to see smart girls choose stupidity during adolescence - but the good news is I've found a great place where almost all the women are beautiful AND intelligent.
- Megan's southernmost fan
Wouldn't it be best for everyone if we tried to figure out what exactly is going on, and try to figure out how best to maximize everyone's potential
Okay, if that's what you want to do, then just issue IQ tests to everyone at an early age, group the kids by score, and set your policy and do your research based on that.
See, this is what I mean by the whole discussion being racist. If our interest were strictly in being able to group large portions of the public by their intelligence and tailor our policy based on that, we could simply test them, which would give us far more accurate groupings. Likewise, you know, numerically, there's going to more below-average white people than black people, and yet, not a person has suggested that identifying them would have useful policy implications.
ScentOfViolets,
I don't know if the moron comment was directed at me, but if it was, yes, I know what an allele is.
If you do indeed believe that 1) there is no scientific basis for catagorizing people by race, 2) governments and other institutions should not catagorize people by race, and 3) governments and other institutions should not treat people differently depending on which racial catagory they are put in, then I am charmed by your consistency (and regret what I wrote suggesting otherwise).
I am just tired of people who say 1) out of one side of their mouth but disagree with 2) and 3) out of the other.
I am just tired of people who say 1) out of one side of their mouth but disagree with 2) and 3) out of the other.
It's not an inconsistent position, because in the first case you're relying on a scientific definition of race, whereas the 2nd and 3rd are largely social.
Government policies which do identify racial groups currently usually do so for the purpose of correcting historical discrimination, and so they employ the historical definitions of race--i.e. these characteristics qualify you as black, these other ones as hispanic, etc. That doesn't mean those categorizations are going to be useful or even valid for forward-looking scientific research. It just means they're what was used to target people for discrimination in the past, so they're what we use to target people for monitoring and assistance now.
I don't know why people get so hung up on this. It's not like your mistakes cease to have ramifications once you identify them as such.
I am getting so bloody sick of the whole 'well if race doesn't exist, then we can get rid of any government programs based on race, heh heh heh!' comment-shit. Listen up, you horrible little people. Whether or not popular ideas of 'race' even remotely resemble some sort of scientifically meaningful category, it's very clear that historical and social ideas and ascriptions of race have and continue to have immense effects.
"Kosher" and "treyf" aren't really biologically meaningful categories, for example, but no doubt they have a real impact upon behavior patterns and economics in areas with a high percentage of orthodox Jews.
The Burakumin are a formerly despised and oppressed minority group in Japan: an occupational minority - the descendants of people with 'impure' jobs, not an ethnic or racial one. A distinction between burakumin and non-burakumin Japanese is probably 'scientifically' meaningless, but nevertheless there have been rather significant government programs aimed at aiding people so identified (and which is claimed to have resulted in various improved - but not yet up to majority rates - stats for them re: educational achievement, etc.
Japan has also had widespread acceptance of certain pseudoscientific beliefs about the influence of blood type on character, temperament, etc. It's possible to imagine a an alternate history where an inherited social hierarchy based on blood type became established (perhaps after a Japanese victory in WWII) and lasted for some centuries. Now, blood types are real, and have various quite significant medical implications, but the idea of blood types in our alternate history is certainly not scientifically meaningful (one might say it's a social construction). Indeed, if people eventually rejected bloodtypism and sought a more fair and equitable society, and practical redress so that the injustices of the past were less able to perpetuate themselves into the future, they might indeed create programs which - at least in part - took note of blood type 'identity'.
Etc.
A liar as well as a moron, you horrible little person. Yep, no such thing as witches, so nobody was ever hanged or burned or pressed to death because they were found by the duly constituted authorities of the day to be witches. The Irish are not a separate race, despite what was once a widespread belief otherwise, so all that discrimination against those 'dumb, lazy and drunken' Irish never happened.
I don't believe you know what an allele is, btw, or the significance of allele frequencies, but a thought occurs:
You are being deliberately provocative. You want people to tell you what nasty person you are.
That's sick.
Dan S,
I am getting so bloody sick of the whole 'well if race doesn't exist, then we can get rid of any government programs based on race, heh heh heh!'
Well, are you claiming "race doesn't exist" or aren't you? Make up your mind. If there's no such thing as race, there can be no such thing as racism. Do you believe there's no such thing as racism?
Whether or not popular ideas of 'race' even remotely resemble some sort of scientifically meaningful category,
Popular ideas of race obviously resemble some sort of scientifically meaningful category. Popular ideas of race involve biological characteristics such as skin color, anatomical features and ancestry. These are all "scientifically meaningful" categories, just like any other biological characteristic is "scientifically meaningful."
Chuckle. Can I call 'em or can I can I call 'em? Perhaps there is some program available to Mixner to ameliorate his excruciating stupidity. But on the other hand, why should I or any other taxpayer fund it? His stupitdity, not to mention his mendacity, is almost certainly better than 95% inherited.
Scent, you're a complete idiot. You also didn't answer the question. Gee, I wonder why.
ScentOfViolets,
You seem to have managed to thoroughly confuse yourself. By definition, there can be no such thing as racial discrimination if there's no such thing as race. On the premise that "there's no such thing as race," groups of people usually considered to have been the victims of racial discrimination may have been discriminated against on the basis of something else, but not on the basis of race. So what is that "something else," in your view, and what word do you propose we use to refer to it, if not the word "race?"
JimMc-
You're committing a category error. When people say there is no such thing as race, they are saying that our conceptions of race are rooted in arbitary characteristics of individuals, e.g., skin color; there is no biological characterstic that makes a group of people a discrete race qua race. In other words, its a social contract. That doesn't mean that the concept of race does not exist--of course it does, otherwise their initial statement that 'race does not exist' would be nonsensical.
I really can't believe I have to explain that.
Gee, dumbass, maybe because I already answered it, along with several other people. In fact, it's just a few posts above yours:
So I think it's pretty damn well thoroughly established who is the idiot and who is not. Moron.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that most everybody is laughing at you by this point. Here's a clue, you want to be treated like an adult, them damn well act like one and get a little education before making statements that lead people to believe you are of distinctly subnormal intelligence.
I need hardly add that it ill behooves people who are already known to not as acute as others to go casting aspersions about some groups intelligence.
rickm, you don't have to explain this. These people are at this point left with nothing but dishonesty. They will grasp at anything, anything at all rather than admit they've been spouting toxic nonsense.
Scent,
Gee, dumbass, maybe because I already answered it, along with several other people.
No, moron, you didn't.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that most everybody is laughing at you by this point.
I think it's a pretty safe bet you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
rickm,
You're committing a category error. When people say there is no such thing as race, they are saying that our conceptions of race are rooted in arbitary characteristics of individuals, e.g., skin color;
What do you mean "arbitrary?" Arbitrary with respect to what? You're not saying anything meaningful here.
there is no biological characterstic that makes a group of people a discrete race qua race. In other words, its a social contract.
No, "race" is a term that refers to categories defined primarily by biological characteristics, including, but not limited to, skin color. What term do you propose we use to refer to these categories, if not "race?"
That doesn't mean that the concept of race does not exist
So what is "race," then, in your view, if not a category defined by characteristics such as skin color, anatomical features and ancestry?
ScentOfViolets,
What have I done to be referred to as "A liar as well as a moron, you horrible little person"?
I've never mentioned witches or Irish.
Chuckle. Ironic, isn't it? The "I'm too stupid to understand" defense.
No, you really have no business critiquing the intelligence of others.
Does anybody else besides these hopelessly invested retards not get the point?
No, there is no scientific basis for the existence of race. This is old, well-established science. Period. End of story. Can people discriminate on the basis of skin color? Features? Weight? Religious preference? Nationality?
You betcha.
Scent,
No, there is no scientific basis for the existence of race.
Ha ha ha ha! So skin color, facial features, ancestry, and the other biological characteristics that distinguish racial categories are just figments of our imagination, are they? You really are a complete moron.
Matt,
I agree with much of what you said in your 3:22 PM post. I caricatured a different version of it in my 10:45 AM post:
Race doesn't exist but perceptions of race exist--and they are so powerful and so pervasive that we have to classify every American into a small number of racial boxes, assume that which box someone is in tells us very, very important things about his or her experiences, and treat people differently depending on which box they are in.
I fear, however, that the cure does not work and instead perpetuates some of the disease. It makes people place each other in racist catagories and think in racist terms. I suspect that most people who talk of white oppressors and black victims are thinking that white and black are facts of nature, not social constructs. Just as do most of those who say, "blacks want special treatment."
ScentOfViolents,
I don't think I'm "too stupid to understand."
However, I do think that you shouldn't call someone "A liar as well as a moron, you horrible little person" without saying why.
You brought up witches and Irish, things I had never mentioned. It's pretty well established that women were convicted of being witches and killed in travesties of justice. There has also been talk, particularly in mid-nineteenth century England and America of the "Irish race"--though most people who denigrated Irish people considered them to be "white", just an inferior kind of white, something like the way Hitler considered Slavs to be inferior whites.
What have I done or said to make you react so strongly?
Yep, all them scientists who say "there is no scientific basis for race" . . . what do they know?
I think it's safe to say that Mixner has quite thoroughly shown himself to be a deeply unserious person.
I brought them up to show how poor your reasoning is. To say that there is no scientific basis for race most definitely does not say that there has been no discrimination of the basis of skin color, any more than noting that there are not such things as witches implies that no one was ever burned at the stake for being convicted of being a witch.
I can't believe you don't know that, and I don't believe that your attempt to force a conclusion was innocent. I think it was completely dishonest.
ScentOfViolets,
Why do you think I am being dishonest? I never said racial discrimination doesn't exist or didn't exist. It did and it does. In America, it used to matter a lot lot lot. It doesn't matter nearly so much any more. I think that is good.
Scent,
Yep, all them scientists who say "there is no scientific basis for race"
All what scientists? You haven't identified a single scientist making such a claim, or explaining what it is exactly they mean by "race" in that context.
Do you believe there is such a thing as racial discrimination, or don't you? For goodness sake, make up your mind.
Intelligence: first of all, definitely not to be measured by only one number such as IQ. (I have experiences with prior romantic partners that definitely prove this. Absolutely brilliant with numbers, clueless with people.)
Intelligence: genetic or environmental. Yeah, probably both. At present, unable to be unraveled (environment affects genetic expression as well, y'know). Result: Any supposed curve "showing differences" has error bars running the length of the page. Hell of a way to "prove" anything.
And considering that the crowd yelping for racial differences in intelligence a) have some pretty putrid skeletons in the closet, b) regularly regurgitate data and theories that have already been debunked, and c) happen to be pasty white males with nothing else to boast of in their lives except their skin color--methinks I will take commentary from THAT peanut gallery with a very, very large grain of salt.
All we need now are some eugenicists from Planned Parenthood, to go along w/Mixner, and we'd have a real Barrel of Monkeys..
Well, I'm certainly willing to admit I may have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize. But it seems you were saying that if there is no scientific basis for race, then there is no reason to adopt corrective policies based upon past discrimination of groups of people.
That is simply wrong. We know, for example, that in terms of genetic distance, Africans and, um, what's it called these day, Oceania? are the farthest apart. Yet to the casual eye, they both appear 'black', and certainly far more closely related than , say, Asians and Africans, or Africans Europeans. Does that mean that discrimination based upon 'blackness' did not occur? Of course not. Hmm . . . let me google a wikipedia article, as a good place to start. I will add that this information is all over the place, but you can at least start by grabbing ahold of a few links there. What does it have to say about race and genetics? Well, there's this little bit, for example:
.It also mentions the famous example that everybody knows about 'passing', Carole Channing.
Here's another bit, where even the scientists who talk about the significance of 'race' say that when they use that term, it is not what is meant in the vernacular:
The bold is how I learned it, btw, and it was not in the context of biology, but in a statistics class on various statistical techniques like cluster analysis.
At which point I should make mention of my own motivations for participating in this thread. I don't object to the notion of races, I don't care if there is such a thing or not, nor do I care if it turned out that some races were more intelligent or handsomer or longer-lived than others. If that's the way things are, then that's the way things are. Shrug (as many already know, I'm not particularly liberal.)
What I _do_ object to is bad science, bad math, bad statistics, especially when it is being used to give the patina of authenticity to political or ideological positions.
I see people like Mixner here, for example, or Stuart Buck on other threads who simply have no idea about scientific methodology, scientific procedure, basic science facts, and who don't particularly care what they are, but who are more than willing to flog a 'scientific' study that supports their position. It's science, doncha know, and therefore their positions must be right.
Feh. People like that need to be drop-kicked into some little rat-hole of a nasty third world theocracy. They don't deserve the benefits of science.
Scent,
Well, at least you're now trying to make some kind of serious argument. Unfortunately, your source doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
The text you highlighted makes no sense. Racial categories are not associated with a quantity of genetic variation, but with particular types of genetic variation. Primarily, variation in the genes that code for skin color and the shape of facial features. The observation that the amount of genetic variation between two individuals of the same race may be greater than the amount of variation between two individuals of different races is therefore completely irrelevant to the question of whether racial categories are meaningful. Skin color and facial features are obviously biological traits and are therefore obviously scientifically meaningful.
One obvious area demonstrating that racial categories are not only meaningful but have clear practical implications is medicine. As the person "Neil Risch" (whoever that is) cited by your source correctly points out:
And obviously, groups that differ in genes that affect their susceptability and natural history of disease may also differ in genes that affect other characteristics, including cognitive abilities.
Scent,
I don't object to the notion of races, ....
And yet you also claim to believe that race has "no scientific basis." Even though you also just quoted text that describes a scientific basis for race in terms of susceptability to disease. Go figure.
I don't care if there is such a thing or not, ...
If you don't care whether there is such a thing as race, you cannot care whether there is such a thing as racial discrimination, since there cannot be discrimination on the basis of race if there's no such thing as race. You can't discriminate on the basis of something that doesn't exist.
Trying to extract any kind of clear, coherent, consistent position from your endlessly conflicting statements seems to be an exercise in futility. You don't seem to know what you believe, except that you're just damn sure that anyone who raises that unpleasant hypothesis of genetic differences between races in intelligence must have nefarious motives.
You don't seem to get it, Mixner; as far as I'm concerned, you're out of the conversation. You've already demonstrated to my satisfaction and then some that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about. You've also demonstrated that - again to my satisfaction - you're arguing towards a predetermined conclusion.
Why should I waste my time arguing with someone who appears to be as dishonest and uninformed as you are? Something tells me that if the situation were reversed, you wouldn't be any more sparing now than I am of you.
Then again, I don't imagine that sort of situation comes up with you very often.
You want me to talk to you? Then you better give me a damn' good reason why I should. Otherwise, you're staying out.
You can't discriminate on the basis of something that doesn't exist.
Yeeeeesh. Dude, give it up. You're just being obtuse now.
ScentOfViolets,
Thank you for your consideration in your 9:52 PM post. You said
Well, I'm certainly willing to admit I may have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize. But it seems you were saying that if there is no scientific basis for race, then there is no reason to adopt corrective policies based upon past discrimination of groups of people.
That is simply wrong. We know, for example, that in terms of genetic distance, Africans and, um, what's it called these day, Oceania? are the farthest apart. Yet to the casual eye, they both appear 'black', and certainly far more closely related than , say, Asians and Africans, or Africans Europeans. Does that mean that discrimination based upon 'blackness' did not occur? Of course not.
In my 10:45 AM post, these were the words I "put in your mouth."
Race doesn't exist but perceptions of race exist--and they are so powerful and so pervasive that we have to classify every American into a small number of racial boxes, assume that which box someone is in tells us very, very important things about his or her experiences, and treat people differently depending on which box they are in.
That view is intellectually consistent. But you are right that I have problems with it.
1) Many people are not consistent. When it comes to intelligence, they will say that race does not exist. But if it looks like a drug works better on blacks than whites, they will call for separate black and white trials of it. In fact, they will push the FDA to require all preliminary drug trials to break down results racially.
Look at all the people (e.g. Henry Louis Gates, Oprah Winfrey) who have sent DNA off to services that purport to tell them what their racial ancestry is. You and I know this is just comparing allele frequencies to make guesses about where various ancestors came from, but people interpret the results as, "I'm 3/4 black and 1/4 white" or (I really hate this way of putting it) "I have 3/4 black blood and 1/4 white blood."
2) People will use racial catagories where there is no history. Harvard will admit rich Africans to fill its black student goals (don't call them quotas). A recent immigrant from Peru gets put into the "hispanic" box even though she has had no experience of American society.
3) In order to deal with 2), people must say something like, "American society is so racist that any non-white who comes in contact with it is immediately disadvantaged and deserving of 'a leg up.'" I think this is false and hateful. I also think it is counterproductive.
I think telling people, "American society won't give you a fair shake" will lead to discouragement and a lack of resilience and the very "whites do well, blacks do badly" results that neither you nor I want. I have special scorn for politicians who say, "American society won't give you a fair shake unless me and my people are in power."
Even good African-American progressives like Bob Herbert and Alvin Poussaint are now saying, "no matter what white people do, what matters most to black people is what they do to each other and to themselves."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/opinion/16herbert.html
Yet still today, many will dismiss that as right-wing propaganda, diverting attention from the real problem, which is white privilege, and the real solutions, which must include some sort of reverse (thus good) discrimination. I think this has been tragically counterproductive.
There is something I in the opening remarks that seems relevant now:
.There seems to be an implicit assumption into how people are divided on this issue, in this case 'liberal' vs 'nonliberal'. I would suggest that this is not the relevant division. I, for example, don't really care if there is a scientific justification for race, or not, or if, given legitimate racial divisions, one race scores collectively higher on a set of well-defined aptitudes.
And, oddly enough, what I get from the responses here is that quite a few people feel the same way, are perhaps, even, in the majority.
I suggest that what most people on one side of the discussion are really against, what the true division really is, is the feeling towards the use of bad science. Let me give another quote:
Leaving aside the plug for libertarianism, I suspect most people here feel exactly the same way.
And you see an awful lot of this sort false division: 'liberals' don't accept want to accept the fact that tax cuts increase revenue because they want a nanny state.
No 'liberals' (I wonder to what purpose I am being put in this category) don't accept the fact that tax cuts increase revenue because that has been proven to be empirically false.
'Liberals' don't accept the fact that the supply of oil is infinite, because they want to impose their vision of environmentalism on the rest of us.
No, 'liberals' don't accept the fact that the supply of oil is infinite because only an idiot would think otherwise.
And so on and so forth. I think I can safely speak for a lot of people posting here and say that 'liberals' are four-square for good science. There are a lot of things 'we' accept or don't accept, not on the basis of personal feelings, but on the basis of sound science, empirical observations, etc.
Where the liberalism or the conservatism comes out, I suggest, is what is done with these facts once they are known, .e.g, in the policy prescriptions.
For it is quite possible to, for example, firmly hold as a true proposition 'blacks are intellectually inferior', yet then conclude that more, not less resources should be given over to one group to realize as much of their potential as possible.
Me? As I said, I'm not particularly liberal, but if there are spots where I am, this is one of them; if the proposition above was ever definitively answered in the affirmative, I cheerfully admit that I would agressively lobby for more resources, not less be devoted towards narrowing the gap.
And this is where the difference between the conservative and the liberal comes into play. For you see, 'conservatives' are not only pushing this notion with no real evidence, what they are doing is using it as a justification to withhold resources.
For them, the real issue is not the 'truth', but rather, finding the means to deny a group of people any sort of compensatory programs or funding. That's the real difference, not whether or not 'liberals' are being wooley-eyed and refusing to accept a hard truth, vs the 'tough-minded conservatives' who are just being pragmatic and dealing with the 'real world'.
How about this for a plan that everyone can agree to:
Young children are given IQ tests. Then their parents are given vouchers which can be used at any school they want. The vouchers begin at a high figure, say $30,000 for an IQ of 70, and then go down, to bottom out at say $10,000 for an IQ above 150.
Or do I mean a plan that can annoy everyone?
Actually, it is similar to the way some jurisdictions run their school choice plans. Accepting schools get paid more for difficult students than for easy students. Of course, the IQ plan has the tremendous difficulty that many kids would try to score lower than they could. How do you keep everyone from getting a score like Ralph Wiggum?
ScentOfViolets,
For it is quite possible to, for example, firmly hold as a true proposition 'blacks are intellectually inferior', yet then conclude that more, not less resources should be given over to one group to realize as much of their potential as possible. ... if the proposition above was ever definitively answered in the affirmative, I cheerfully admit that I would agressively lobby for more resources, not less be devoted towards narrowing the gap.
Will Saletan says something very similar toward the end of his series on race and intelligence in Slate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
How about this for a plan that everyone can agree to:
Young children are given IQ tests. Then their parents are given vouchers which can be used at any school they want. The vouchers begin at a high figure, say $30,000 for an IQ of 70, and then go down, to bottom out at say $10,000 for an IQ above 150.
Won't happen. The trouble is that in the eye of society, intelligence *is* correlated with one's worth as a human being. You can bet that if we really did start serious IQ testing, we'd end up not "wasting" money on low end of the spectrum. We would funnel the left end into an educational wasteland and then not be surprised when they turn out badly, "proving" we shouldn't be wasting the resources in the first place. Not to mention that the students would of course start out knowing they're expected to fail.
Of course, this smacks of what we already do, except now it would be given the scientific veneer of justification.
I really have to wonder whether there's anyone supporting investigation of racial differences in intelligence who believes that's there's *any* possible positive social outcome to it.
(Unless they're idea of a positive social outcome is the development of some sort of racial caste system...)
I really have to wonder whether there's anyone supporting investigation of racial differences in intelligence who believes that's there's *any* possible positive social outcome to it.
One obvious benefit of a robust scientific finding that all or almost all such differences are accounted for by environmental factors would be to discredit claims that there are large genetic differences in intelligence between races.
If you believe it's all a matter of environment, and you want others to believe that too, you should welcome scientific research that confirms your view.
Seems to me that we should spend less time worrying about black/white IQ differences and more time worrying about paying the least capable, black or white to reproduce.
For those above who advocate throwing more resources at the least capable, how about this deal: double welfare payments for childless welfare recipients and cut by two thirds for each child.
For you darwinists, what public policy do you propose to advance evolution instead of devolution?
"Tomorrow might be different"
- Mack Reynolds, near future SF author.
"Aside from a short period at the beginning of human history, the word 'Ship' will be understood to mean 'Space Ship'. "
- Arthur C. Clarke, far future SF writer
Mankind came out of the caves yesterday, down from the trees last week, and in future, will need at least a 100 IQ to be functional in society.
- Me
_Near_ future; The Chinese are smarter and more numerous than the rest of us, also more ruthless, and their socio-economic evolution may include an East-West Alliance, if we are lucky.
The rest of the world, the sub-100 IQ fraction, will be subject to Eugenics, or Euthanasia,
if they are lucky.
The "Firefly" Universe is not my first choice of a future, but it looks like the most probable.
"Tempeton (1998) states that in biology a level of 0.25-0.3 (20-30%) of differentiation normally accepted in biological literature for a population to be considered a race or subspecies."
Templeton was wrong. There is no such "accepted standard." Templeton misunderstood a rule of thumb in early taxonomical studies where it was required that for two populations to be classified as separate subspecies, 70-75% of the individuals outside the zone where they mingle should be assigned to their respective populations upon inspection.42) The 70-75% rule of thumb certainly doesn't translate to an FST value of 0.25-0.30. Besides, using the mid-facial region alone, if one had a sample of European, Inuit, black African and Australian aboriginal skulls, in any two population comparisons, discriminant analysis will assign 85-100% of skulls to the correct population,43) easily satisfying the 70-75% rule of thumb, and we know that these populations belong to separate races based on the phylogeographic criteria.
Many commonly accepted subspecies have lower Fst values than human races. These include divisions with the species of Jaguar, Puma, Coyote and Grey Wolf.