Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Rushton & Jensen published a review, (2005) Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 11:2, 235-294. One critic raised the interesting point that if these things be true, what are the gains from talking about them? After all, marriages and other partnerships rest on kindness and calling the other partner "stupid" hardly builds loyalties.

Nonetheless, Phil Rushton, persecuted by the press and his academic colleagues for several years after he published "Race, Evolution, and Behavior," announced both a new book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (Paperback), about $17, by Richard Lynn, on that same topic. Rushton's comments on Lynn's book are at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...283155&s=books
and at: http://www.vdare.com/rushton/060322_iq.htm.

The question is not only a matter of "having the science that you like" but also in finding resolutions to many world tensions.

For example (from Rushton's review): "These findings in Lynn's latest book have profound geopolitical
significance. They imply it may simply not be possible to transmit Western-style democratic and economic systems to the populations of Latin America and Moslem North Africa and the Middle East, let alone sub-Saharan Africa. They mean that the world's long-term problems will stem from its populations' capabilities-much deeper and more intractable than any "Clash of Civilizations"-style competition between different political concepts."

I'm not sure about "intractable": intermixture eventually solves lots of problems, but I'm not sure what else might occur during the time required. And Lynn confirms other sources that in any IQ measurements: the northern Orient shelters the brightest.

It's gonna be a bumpy ride...

JB

Now, this is interesting.
 

From the reviews that you pointed to and the enclosed quote Then, you said, If this is true why is it that northern Oriental cultures for the last several thousand years seem to have had some form of dynastic totalitarian regime - which are essentially more highly organized versions of the mafia - and totally controlled economies. I could be wrong about that but I can't recall any kind of non-totalitarian government in these regions in the history I am familiar with.

Democracy seems to have first germinated in Greece, a southern mid-eastern mediterranean region at a time when northern Europe was populated by warlike barbarian tribes - and far south of those northern climes supposedly more conducive to IQ bloom. Democratic thinking (though not democracy) was then resurrected in (relatively dumber than the northern Orient) France and England. It finally blossomed forth in a functional government in America. One hunderd years later we were importing Chinese laborers for the grunge-work of building our railroads. We mistreated them badly and denied them any of the blessings of democratic citizenship. Most died here and were buried in their own special graveyards. At that same enlightened time we were importing thousands of slaves from Africa.

Now, our democracy has thrived for little more than two hunderd years. But, even with our bright example of success, the higher IQ Chinese have only recently decided to implement some free market reforms (so the leadership can tap into the global cash flow, not for egalitarian reasons I am sure) while still retaining tight state control over people's lives.

It seems according to the model presented (high IQ = capacity for enlightened democracy, low IQ = only capable of totalitarian corruption) the Chinese would have figured out Democracy and free markets a few thousand years ago and would have taught our ancestors all about it (if they thought they were smart enough to understand such advanced principles) - and the Ashkenazim would have been running Europe long before Hitler came to power.

I'm not questioning the science showing IQ differences by race - just the ideological conclusions that seem to come from it. And I'm pointing out that world history seems to say that cultural influences were far stronger than IQ in determining government organization and economic systems. Am I missing something important here?

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

That’s huge Margaret (I don’t think that was Gould’s POV), b/c once the reality of general intelligence differences is acknowledged, then the rest of the argument just boils down to what we can (or should?) infer from that reality, the just so stories that that fact may imply.

E.g., can we infer that those capable of designing and building igloos really are smarter than others, or should we infer instead that the igloo builders lacked the sense to move to a warmer climate, say Greece, and discover, say, the Pythagorean theorem and Democracy?

A puzzle for me is that while there may be an inverse relationship between religiosity and general intelligence, you white atheists nevertheless generally don’t seem to put that intelligence you’ve been blessed with to much positive use.

Re: Now, this is interesting.
 

Or maybe they're just biding their time while the democracies disarm themselves in the name of egalitarianism and they will then clean our clocks. Emporers ARE better at building empires, after all. A nation bent on subjugating the entire world is, after all, more fit if they're unfettered by human rights.

I'm not arguing for their government, I'm just pointing out that maybe this moment in time is not necessarily the end of the test and maybe a free market economy is not necessarily the ultimate goal of intelligence.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

In replying to my own post, above, I am reminding any advocates of biological (genetic) determinism that my closing paragraph was, I should have stated that first sentence more clearly as -I am not addressing the question of racial IQ difference here, just postponing it so I can focus on one area of scientific misinformation at a time. ;)

And I'm still waiting for any genetic determinists here to point out what it is that I may be "missing" - just as I am still waiting for a cogent response to my free will challenge.

I would also remind any careless or hopeful readers that my discussion of the balance between genetic and environmental influences on behavior (or IQ) - and the effect that may have on the human condition - is in no way a suggestion on my part that some influence of spirit or soul may be at work. I stopped considering such questions as relevant sometime around 1957.

Since this post is meant to prevent further misunderstanding, please realize that I make these challenges in the spirit of a friendly competitive discussion. When I challenge the correctness of your assertions I'm not saying you are a bad person. I respect everyone's on-topic opinion here, even those I disagree with, except those that are obviously ad hominem attacks - which I try to ignore.

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Tom, you said, Good observation! ;)

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

All you’re missing, Margaret, is the overwhelming evidence, statistics, science that proves the reality of general intelligence differences—read and study Jensen’s books/research—if you still don’t buy it, discussing/arguing any other aspect is completely pointless, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

Face it Margaret, your ideology simply doesn’t permit you to accept or acknowledge the science or evidence that proves the reality of general intelligence differences.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

It is interesting to me that people are taking 'IQ' tests to measure intelligence. I mean there is a sense in which 'intelligence tests' are measures of intelligence (by definition) but operationalism tends to severely alter what interested us in the first place in order to be able to study it.

like how consciousness has been operationalised as reportability, wakefulness, etc etc because while one cannot measure whether it is like anything at all for the person one can measure whether they can report on something or whether their brain activity is correlated with wakefulness as opposed to being asleep etc.

it is typically acknowledged that IQ tests mean something very restrictive indeed re 'intelligence'.

it is also typically acknowledged (and really i am surprised nobody has mentioned this before now) that there are major problems with ALL current intelligence tests re cultural bias.

cultural bias.

interesting.

but no of course black people are less smart than white people so why bother spending money on educating black people.

are people aware that the bell curve findings were used to support eugenics in the US before Hitler... the US and the UK were implementing eugenics programs... but after Hitler they distanced themselves from that.

it is of course a jump from how one scores on a test to whether their ability to do those kind of tasks will generalise back to the real world or not. then there is the point about how abstract rationality is diffeent from practical rationality which requires emotions / appropriate desires as well...

then there is the point that the differences between black people and white people can be explained by appealing to the differences in socio economic status between black people and white people. and also the access to quality education between black people and white people.

one can study for intelligence tests to do better. practice mental rotation tasks etc. the more one does those kinds of tasks the better one gets. the more formal schooling one has and the more one is encouraged in those kind of tasks the better one gets.

they went to some tribe and tried to test their intelligence by asking them some abstract rationality question along the lines of 'suppose 3 women live in the tribe next door and then.....' the people shrugged and walked away. the anthropoligists thougth they were stupid 'cause they couldn't answer the question. the members of the tribe thought the anthropoligists were stupid 'cause there weren't 3 women in the next tribe and who cna be bothered to listen to people spouting nonsense when there is fishing to be done...

who are the stupid ones?

anyways... just my 2c.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-inferiorIQ.htm

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-intervention.htm

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Hi Alexandra, Good to have you back. Thanks for posting those links and comments. I was hoping to get the genetic determinists to commit to some more silly social generalizations like the quotes from Rushton that started this thread - before bringing out the data. But you beat me to it. ;)

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Regarding genetic “determinists” you must be referring to TomJ’s “determinism” (me being more a free will/moral responsibility kind of guy)—hopefully Tom will respond; and maybe he’ll be able to tie it in with his “It's ultimately not their fault,” beliefs for you too.

Regarding your “data,” that ideological Internet site that you ladies cite, “THE LONG FAQ ON LIBERALISM,” was a hoot. Thanks for the laughs. Bye, bye for now girls; it’s been surreal.

Sunday morning essay.
 

I have never denied that there is a genetic basis for behavior and personality. Before we get into the details however, I think it's very important to recognize that genetic basis does not imply genetic control of behavior.

It means that we have an emotional control system that uses dispositions and hormones and neurotransmitters to mediate our behavior. And our emotional control systems do vary genetically between individuals, genders and races. It may be inately harder for some persons to learn some some types of behavior - or for others to avoid some types of behavior.

But, observation shows that we are all capable of overcoming that difficulty - and civilization requires that we do so. Our dispositions and emotions often tell us, for example, that it would be nice to have something that belongs to someone else. But most of us in almost every human culture learn to resist the disposition to just take what we want if we are big enough.

That's because we have evolved to have software programmable behavior that can interact with our emotions and that allow us to resist such urges. For most small children in the sandbox, not imposing one's will on others, is their first introduction to that necessary social programming.

But, there's much more going on here.

Even though most of us learn to curb our more socially destructive dispositions, those who have power and status in society are more easily offended by this necessity. This seems especially true in male dominated cultures like ours where competition is not just a healthy way to optimize the production of goods and services. Here, it is culturally fetishized.

Those who hold power can be very imaginative when justifying their right to retain that power - and in preserving the rigged competitive institutions that make that possible. For example, they can take things like IQ testing, that was originally developed to help teachers in France identify students that needed special help, and over the years turn that into a way to justify barriers to changes in the status quo.

But, what is IQ. We are told it is a measure of innate ability. I would ask, innate ability for what? The only thing certain is that it shows one's ability to answer some particular questions - and that it correlates well with a person's ability to compete in the particular games that are fetishized in that culture. Games like, Who Get's to be CEO, or Who Get's to Run Research Departments at Harvard, for example.

But IQ tests show consistent results, they say. Yes, they do. That's because IQ testing is big business. IQ tests that don't produce the results that school boards and other institutions expect are not purchased next time around - and millions of dollars of taxpayer money and even seats on the school board are at stake. IQ tests evolve to lose the questions that don't provide those consistent results - that don't support the cultural prejudices of those who pay for them. Companies that design IQ tests tout their ability to show this remarkable consistency in their advertising.

But, IMO the greatest problem with IQ is the notion that IQ is some real psychological variable, like empathy or fear or aggression. But it is not because it can't be. It is a sleight of hand composed of esoteric terms and statistical formulae. It reminds me of the mathematical equations behind the potency of homeopathic remedies.

The only forces that actually exist in our minds are the emotions that we experience. Our emotions direct our minds to produce concepts - fleeting networks of neurons firing in particular spatial patterns and at particular frequencies. Like subatomic particles, they are only visible because of their effects. Their ephemeral existence is entirely dependent on the emotions in the human minds that conjure them.

The types of concepts that any person produces and learns to use effectively are completely subject to the context of their own lives - their gender, their society, their experience, etc. They have no direct connection to their genetics, as our emotions do. Intelligence testing then purports to measure the efficacy of those specific chimeric patterns.

A magic number is produced - IQ - a single number that supposedly represents everything we'll ever need to know about who that person can ever become in life. According to Phil Rushton and some others, even a society's average IQ supposedly tells us everything we'll ever need to know about what that whole society can ever become. How fortunate we are to have scientists simplify such complicated questions for us.

But, IQ turns out to be nothing more than a person's innate ability to be good at creating and manipulating the particular classes of concepts that are valued by those paying for the IQ tests.

And, like the social construct of IQ itself, the concepts we produce in our minds - at the behest of our emotions - turn out to be far more useful for justifying our prior emotionally held beliefs than for examining them.

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Glad you asked Margaret—innate cognitive ability. Or “intelligence”—think of it as the “cognitive” in Ledoux’s mental trilogy; the other two being emotion and motivation.

From Wikipedia:

China, Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Margaret:

Check one of my favorite authors: Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment, who addresses relevant aspects of Chinese achievement.

The Chinese accomplished the first civil service system and a fairly enlightened system of environmental modifications at around 1200 (not sure of the dates).

I'm not sure why things eroded. They also had a handicap from their type of intelligence: that of seeing too much of a balanced order and not breaking things into linear components. Changes were neither possible nor desirable.
I suspect they have learned very well from us about the blessings of linearity and of making changes.

Get to know Murray: you will find him thorough and well motivated. (You can also find a review that I did on Alice Andrew's site: (2004) Magnificent inequality. A review of C. Murray, Human Accomplishment, Entelechy (Evolution, Mind, & Culture) http://www.entelechyjournal.com/magn...inequality.htm Spring/Summer.

And you probably still need to read Pinker's "Blank Slate" ...

JB

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

" MM: But, what is IQ. We are told it is a measure of inate ability. I would ask, inate ability for what?"

IQ predicts academic achievement. It also predicts male excellence...it also relates to figuring things out, manipulating hierarchic standing, getting wives who are more fit, finding underlying order despite all of your wives, and asking "Why not?" about things that matter most of all...

Again, read Pinker and drop some prejudices...

JB

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

JimB, I just noticed that you posted two messages. OK, I just ordered Blank Slate and How the Mind Works for good measure. I have watched two interviews of Pinker. One was an extensive one-hour session where the interviewer was Robert Wright. I have read The Moral Animal a couple of times and it is on my shelf.

Steven Pinker seems like a smart and reasonable person. I like his ideas (so far) and his hair ;) I find it hard to believe that in The Blank Slate he's going to tell me how the lower average IQ's of women and blacks make us inferior to white men in terms of excellence. But I'm ready if it happens.

Which particular prejudices of mine should I be on the lookout for his book to correct? Or, do you think he can cover them all in one book? :confused:

Meanwhile, I'll be working on some thoughts about competition and the pursuit of excellence that I'm sure you'll enjoy. :cool:

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Excerpts From a piece in U.S. News & World Report - Mar 1, 2006, “Liberals and inconvenient science,” Posted at 08:00 AM by John Leo, (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion...nient_scie.htm):

Damn JimB, you’re good—I should have realized that Pinker’s big hair would be far more persuasive than Jensen’s boring science, statistics, and evidence. Note to Margaret—forget about Jensen . . . Jensen who?

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Against the alternative of cultural determinism, I'm not one of your "genetic determinists", as I've said in the past. In case you're not intentionally forgetting (and maybe to reinforce my point to others) I'll reiterate: my discussion of IQ-genetics was only that there was a possible mechanism (not a proven one), without which I would have to believe wholly in cultural influences. And BTW that mechanism is the need to improvise in a difficult environment, which includes other influences beyond weather. War is another. The availability of game is another.

I agree that all of Alexandra's and Margaret's arguments may be true, and almost made a couple of them. Intelligence is not that easily measured.

Which leads to my initial statement on this issue: we can not yet discuss this topic objectively. But it's still interesting how people's brains affect how they read the same sentences.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Wake up Tom—intelligence quotient (IQ) is a score derived from a set of standardized tests developed to measure a person's cognitive abilities ("intelligence") in relation to their age group—obviously it doesn’t measure intelligence the way a ruler measures height (absolutely), but rather the way a race measures speed (relatively). See my above post and the quote from Wikipedia.

Take JimB’s advice and read Pinker—perhaps the charming, big haired Pinker will convince you and the girls of the reality of general intelligence differences. BTW, Pinker also has indicated that he doesn’t think free will is a myth, and believes in moral responsibility. (Pinker notes that, “In cases where we can tell with certainty that an identifiable kind of actor is undeterrable by criminal sanctions, in fact we don't punish him -- that's why we don't punish children, animals, machines, or the truly insane.” Unfortunately, however, Pinker apparently has been an atheist since age 13 . . . but then Flew was an atheist for 80 years b/f he saw the light)

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Hi Tom, I'm not sure that I agree with your At least in the sense that these things hardly ever get discussed objectively anyplace, I think we have as good a chance as anyone else. I also disagree with your underlying premise which seems to be that incontrovertible objective evidence has to exist before an objective discussion can take place. Objectivity only requires honest motives and no hidden agendas. I don't mind agendas as long as we're up front about them.

Here's mine. I am revolted by the idea of a world where someone's genes (translated as skin color, gender, perhaps IQ, etc.) could prevent them from receiveing fair and equal treatment or an equitable shot at happiness in the society they are born into. You know, those rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.

I don't have trouble discussing sex or racial differences in mental abilities or intelligence. But the facts on the ground are that conservatives are making two cases. One, is that those purported differences are incontrovertible and immutable. There is ample evidence to disagree with, if not disprove, both of those. An honest, objective discussion can be valuable to at least show that our current cultural re-embrace of eugenics is not nearly as science-driven as the RW think tanks and Steve Sailer (and JimB) would have us believe.

Their second case is that those differences justify some fairly radical conclusions regarding how we treat each other in the world. I mean, if so many people in this world really are genetically inferior - then you really can't expect the gifted classes to share their resources and their healthy, comfortable life-styles with the dumb ones, can you. How fair is that?

Rushton's quote that JimB posted to start this thread was quite revealing: But, even better evidence of where they are going with all this IQ stuff comes from The Bell Curve where the authors propose that (based on these easily understood, incontrovertible and immutable differences) the time has come for our society (the USA) to now organize itself to segregate the less mentally astute from the more capable - perhaps in special communities. From page 526, I suspect that widespread resistance and even revolt will require that they become even more pragmatic in their approach, however. There are several million of us who have average (IQ 100) or even above who are apparently not intelligent enough to appreciate the economic wonders of Enron-style capitalism or who don't take a suitably homophobic version of Jay-sus as our savior or who fail to see the profound wisdom of a God and smart-bombs-fueled Republican foreign policy and are labelled as enemy combatants - and so I think those special communities may end up with a broader mix by IQ.

This discussion is not really one that I'm willing to postpone while we wait for conclusive evidence on IQ. The inconclusive, shaky and disingenuous evidence is already being put to conservative ideological ends by way of the cable-bigots who reach millions every day. I don't see Rush asking for better evidence, do you?

Objectively, Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

My dictionary says:
But, my comment was only about the concept of genetic IQ, not each side's use of heretofore undecidable 'conclusions'. Discuss away but I don't have a dog in this fight.

Fred and I ought to take identical IQ tests. Well, maybe identical except his ought to be translated into a language spoken by few people and then translated back into 'english'. Not fair?

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

One’s IQ can give us some sense of one’s potential, but it’s not exactly destiny. While an IQ of 80 is probably going to preclude one from ever becoming a rocket scientist, there are, nevertheless, those with IQs over 140 that waste what they’ve been blessed with, and/or misuse it—it’s that free will thing (and then of course there may be various neurological disorders that can muck thing up).

I’d guess that your/my IQs are within a 5% range—believe it or not, you could be 5% higher on the curve, or maybe lower. But from what I’ve seen in many of your half-assed posts, I’d say I’m using mine more effectively than you’re using yours, so far anyway . . . and you seem to have other issues.

JimB suggested Murray’s Human Accomplishment—do yourself a favor and read it. Expand your mind Tom . . . or take the blue pill and believe whatever you want to believe. Anyway, if things are as deterministic as you suggest (and I think that they more or less are except for some amount of human free will), then there’s really nothing you can do to change them.

BTW Tom, I’m betting that even Pinker’s charm and big beautiful hair will not overcome Margaret’s ideology—that she’ll never accept or acknowledge, in any meaningful way, the reality of general intelligence differences. What do you think? (I fear that she doesn’t even acknowledge me anymore . . . and I’ve tried so hard to help her . . . oh well.)

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

I hope it is appreciated that to write off arguments because of the person rather than taking the arguments at their merit is what is known as an ad homenim attack.

Yeah I followed the link back to the main page too and some of the other arguments are a riot! But that being said... If you have a problem with the arguments you should address the arguments not attack the person (ie those 'raving liberals'

Margaret... If you are still interested in emotions you might want to check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...lance&n=283155

Prinz engages with the most recent findings from the Cognitive Neuro-Sciences and he tries to extend the James-Lange / Le Doux theory of emotions (as perceptions of body state / perceptions of brain areas active when typically experiencing a body state) line. He also has a place for typical causes, appraisals (ie of danger), and action tendencies. He also engages in a fairly sophisticated analysis of the experimental findings and he considers an interesting analogy between emotions and perceptions. So for instance one can imagine oneself into an emotion one can also imagine a visual perception and both seem to involve the parts of the brain relevant to bottom-up (stimulus driven) visual perception and emotional response.

He talks a bit about the function of emotions too. He thinks emotions are perceptions of body / brain changes and that those states represent relational properties that matter for the organism (ie danger). A very interesting read.

Re intelligence... Nobody seems to have mentioned poverty again... And how poverty (and lack of education) can significantly impact on ones score.

Do people mean to dispute the claims regarding how opression of group seems to have a more significant impact on IQ than ethnic groups?
Do people mean to dispute the claims regarding remedial programs and increase in IQ?
Are people going to argue for those or are they just going to write off the links as words from the 'raving liberals'?
Also would be interesting to consider the role of self-fulfilling prophecy. If people are told they are smart they will do better than if they are told they are stupid. Experiments have found that teachers treat their students very differently depending on whether they are told they are 'smart' or 'stupid'.

Sigh.

Back to the nature / nurture debate again... Things just aren't that simple. If you really are interested I'd suggest Fiona Cowie "What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered" and also Paul Griffiths book on emotions... Title escapes me... Both are empirically informed but even better they engage in sophisticated analysis of the empirical information... Something that seems to be lacking from people who are taught facts without being taught how to think.

Sigh.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Those who deny the massive science and evidence verifying general intelligence and intelligence differences (and the undeniable genetic link) are as disingenuous and/or ignorant as the young-earth creationists who deny the science and evidence verifying that the earth is billions of years old.

The “write-off” of such “arguments” is not so much “ad hominem,” but rather well deserved contempt. Wake up and smell your own narrow-minded ideological bullshit.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Interesting.

Regardless, if there were a set of identical twins where one was well-fed, educated and had a complicated environment and the other was none of those, do you think they would score the same on an IQ test? Use that wonderful mind of yours and think about it. I'll be expecting an answer ;).

There's a difference between stupidity and ignorance. And it's hard to measure the former if there's too much of the latter.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

JimB has provided much info and various studies on twins—if you weren’t such a slacker you probably could’ve use some of that info to help support your less than persuasive arguments against human free will. Still, your time will be better spent if you just read Murray’s Human Accomplishment.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Regardless of any statistical 'adjustment' for environment; liberals will not accept genetic IQ until there is a test which shows that every set of identical twins have the same IQ. There may be one day but it will probably have to include direct brain scans rather than answers to multiple-choice questions.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Tom, Some quick points.

* I am a liberal and I accept a genetic effect on cognitive abilty. I keep saying that but no-one listens.

* That 'statistical adjustment' for environment you refer to is the environmental effect on cognitive abilty.

* Cognitive ability has both genetic and environmental factors. IQ tests (so far) can not separate those for any individual. However, statistical methods and science has examined that question in terms of populations. The best estimates of those attempts so far attribute about a 50/50 contribution by genes and environment - although that could vary in any individual. Even hereditarians agree on this.

* That does not address the question of just what IQ is. I believe that a person's actual cognitive ability (both the innate and environmental components) is a complex variable that could not be expressed as a single number. IQ can be useful as a simple proxy for the complex concept of cognitive ability as long as people remember that - but they won't, of course.

* Even among the hereditarians there are three versions of the inherited IQ theory. The different brain structure model, the different information processing model, and the different intelligences model. The reality (for inherited cognitive ability) could well be some combination of those but all three are themelves plausibly subject to environmental effects during development.

* I accept that IQ predicts some forms of accomplishment. Like Binet I believe that IQ can be a useful tool to help identify children who may need special attention in school.

* Binet warned against and predicted that conservatives would sieze upon IQ as a way to justify unequal treatment of minorities. How right he was.

* If hereditarians agree that cognitive ability is a mix of inherited and environmental factors - and that Ashkinazim Jews can increase their IQ substantially in just a few generations - then why are they not demanding better environmental conditions for groups who test low on the IQ scale in order to eventually raise those scores and eliminate that drain on society for our descendents in future generations - instead of setting up special communities to house them.

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

But then in almost the same breath you opine, “that does not address the question of just what IQ is.”

Once again Margaret, here’s the science from Wikipedia: The problem of course is your lack of consistency and/or your disingenuousness—you also said in another post that you were “postponing it [addressing the question of IQ differences] so I can focus on one area of scientific misinformation at a time,” and that you were “waiting for any genetic determinists here to point out what it is that I may be missing.”

I’d say you’re missing consistency and intellectual honesty. And perhaps you’re also blinded by your hatred for “conservatives”—if so, I’d suggest you get over it—anyway, those evil “conservatives” will almost certainly outbreed the “liberals.”

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Wow, Margaret, great post! It has my vote for post of the year.

My only response is that I don't know that anyone defends:
It might involve the group having evolved a high IQ over millennia, before there were accounts to reconcile. Then this group was chosen to perform this role for obvious reasons and the higher ones were culled from the group; it's this culling that may have turned an average (or somewhat above-average) population into a group of expected outliers.

Just looking for possible mechanisms...

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Tom, Thanks for your kind remarks. For your reference,
This interesting paper is at:

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

I’m not seeing that “environmental factors” necessarily caused much of the Ashkenazi IQ increase, other than perhaps whatever effect the (social?) “environment” may have had in compelling that society to “select” for intelligence, to practice a kind of eugenics; and the resulting evolution of those IQ increases seems to have required more than “just a few generations.”

Nevertheless, since you now seem to be acknowledging that IQ/intelligence is a reality and is at least 50% genetic, and even seem to be suggesting that conditions be implemented so as to increase IQ/intelligence, what kind of pogroms do you think could be employed to achieve such goals? (And wouldn't the "less intelligent" have to be selected out, or is there a way around that?)

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Margaret, I'm afraid that I might have to agree with Fred (and I see neither ad hominems nor ad homenims in his post!).

This abstract talks about selection, so it stands to reason that there had to be something to select. And something had to be done about those not selected.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Tom, I think I was not as clear as I could have been and the fault for any confusion is mine. My statement was, I can see why you might assume I was endorsing the strict hereditarian view when I was only using it to make a point.

My question has two parts, both of which question the motives of the hereditarians by showing that they ignore solutions to intractable social problems such as crime and poverty that present themselves from their own evidence - when those solutions go against their conservative ideology.

The first part asks that if IQ (that highly correlates with future accomplishment according to their view) is substantially dependent on both inheritance (that we can not control over a generation) and environment (that we can control, even hour by hour) - why are not heriditarians insisting that we do whatever we can in the area that we can control - to improve the chances for higher accomplishment in those groups?

Instead, the heriditarians focus on the part that we can not control to justify unequal treatment by society. It seems that every scientific explanation for this hereditarian view of maximum potential worth of a human being by birth invariably leads to such political conclusions. Also, that so many previous attempts by hereditarian scientists to support this view of nature over nurture going back over a century, were so aften the result of scientific fraud, makes me highly suspicious.

I offer Rushton's quote by JimB that started this thread again here for its ability to capture the essence of this view, Oh, the white man's burden is great!

The second part of my statement is more difficult to justify because it leads in so many directions and because my beliefs in those areas are changing the more I read. About ten minutes after I posted it I realized that it would be challenged so I started then to re-examine the statement and compose some defense (or recantation). ;)

I'm still working on that at the level of trying to either justify or change what I believe is true about IQ, intelligence, innate ability, g, factor analysis, etc. I don't know where this will lead but I'm afraid I need more time. For now, I'll just say that it's a good question that deserves a good answer. I know it's silly to think that I'll come up with one when so many real scientists are struggling with it but I'll try just for the mental exercise and to increase my understanding of the question. If I can solidify a more defensible view in the next few days I'll probably start another thread with it as this one is starting to fray.

As far as answering a post because it doesn't include any personal attacks - even though those that preceeded it were full of them and those that are coming are sure to be - I have found that the people you come across in life who are worth knowing because of their basic decency are few and far between. It's almost as if people are born with a certain capacity for decency (the d factor) and no amount of training or encouragement can change that. I have found that the best way to make room in my life for those who have it is to ignore those who don't. :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Hmmm, I suspect that that may be directed towards me. Well, actually Margaret, there are a number of people who’d probably say that I do have much capacity for, and do exercise, a good amount of “decency”—my wife, my kids, my neighbors, those I’ve worked with, etc., etc. In fact, JimB might even say so (and maybe even Todd, but I may be pushing my luck).

Keep in mind Margaret that you were first to “raise the stakes,” as it were, with your hissy-fit here, http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...7&postcount=49 when you inappropriately personalized whatever it was you perceived I was “suggesting” (at which point Tom seemed to join your attack); and it was you who started playing the racist card with your hideous post here, http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...92&postcount=2 , revealing your self-righteous ideology using accusatory words/phrases directed at JimB, such as the “Full Monte” of a “famous racist,” Jim's “attraction to this area” of general intelligence differences, “the attraction of some Evolutionary Biologists to what I had always considered to be the pseudo-science of Eugenics,” etc., etc.

Your problem with me is not that I’m not “decent,” but rather that I candidly challenge and expose your own narrow-minded, self-righteous accusations and ideological dogma for what they are—and I of course always attempt to give as good as I get, or better than I get.

And consider that if I weren’t here to, as JimB has observed, “get the pot to simmer,” any threads with just you and Tom would probably be a boring lukewarm at best; plus you two probably wouldn’t have formed the alliance you now seem to enjoy. (I suspect that Tom may not be a “liberal” in quite the same sense that you’re a “liberal,” although you both seem to be “socialists.”)

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Sorry, you're wrong here, Fred. If you had a higher 'd' quotient you would have been sensitive to Margaret's reasonable reaction to your implying that she is morally blind. And you would have apologized and clarified if you didn't mean to.

That you didn't says a lot. Maybe you could ask your wife to edit.

And I don't have an alliance with Margaret, nor am I socialist. I have plenty of differences with Margaret but my goal is to make this a comfortable forum and not beat people over their heads with our differences.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Au contraire Tom—I did “clarify,” what didn’t really need to be clarified, in my subsequent post, here, http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/sh...0&postcount=52 (that I was merely expressing what the movie seemed to convey, and that if indeed free will is an illusion, then obviously so is morality, and moral blindness would be an inevitable consequence); and I’m disinclined to “apologize” for something I’ve not done, for something I was unjustly (and irrationally) accused of by Margaret.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

What you wrote is not a clarification that would retract any insult:
In fact it just grinds the insult in further. There's nothing 'obvious' about your beliefs, which happen to be wrong.

Humans without free will still have a social instinct and their remorse module activates and makes them feel regret when they do something against those instincts; that's the only basis for your 'morality' no matter how much folklore you want to place around it. At least, those humans with a functional remorse module.

I don't 'decide' with 'free will' to feel uncomfortable when I run over even part of a dead dog on the freeway, much less a dead person; much, much less a live person. It's instinctive.

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

JimB, While I'm waiting for Pinker's books to arrive (should be here today) I went back and read your review of Murray's Magnificent Equality. Here's a little off-the-top-off-my-head review of your review before I run off to a Dr. appt. this morning - even though yours is less a review than a comparison or amplification of Murray's sentiments from your own perspective.

I like your writing. What makes it appealing is that you allow your emotions to shift the focus of your analysis across a range of levels and you seem willing to follow those traces wherever they lead. That kind of writing requires concentration to read - but the payoff is that the reader is treated to a very real account of what you speak. Even if I disagree with some of the linear elements at any one level, I can still appreciate the intellectual honesty of a good mind ticking along impressively. And it's always more interesting when I can feel a person's emotional presence so vividly in their writing.

I think writing it over a Barnes and Noble latte enhanced this effect.

Where I find fault is on the much less significant content level - where I'm sure we're bound to disagree on many things. The main problem I find with both your and Murray's view is that you both confuse social exaltation with worth - and you both write so unquestioningly, in the sense of how could it possibly be otherwise?. It reminds me of the attempts on the right not too long ago to have Ronald Reagan's likeness carved into Mt. Rushmore.

I won't try to dissabuse you of this infuriating conservative notion right now but when you least expect it - expect it - as Christy McNichol once said to her brother. ;)

Margaret

Re: Race Differences and Intelligence
 

Your assumptions that humans lack free will, that the “only basis for morality” is the “remorse module,” is nothing more you’re your own simplistic speculations, your own “folklore,” and something that those of us convinced that humans do indeed have some “free will”—e.g., Todd, Pinker, me, etc., etc.—would never agree with. I doubt JimB would see things as you do. Hell, even your buddy Margaret might not agree with your crude reductionism.