Behavior OnLine Forums

Behavior OnLine Forums (http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/index.php)
-   Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Rushton on BW IQ (http://www.behavior.net/bolforums/showthread.php?t=964)

James Brody November 12th, 2006 04:14 PM

Rushton on BW IQ
 
I really had expected different findings because of genetic mixing with whites (Check Rushton & Jensen in earlier paper:Rushton, J & Jensen, AR (2005) Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 11:2, 235-294.). I think Thomas Sowell (Sowell, T. (2005) Redneck Blacks and White Liberals. San Francisco: Encounter) has solutions that don't invoke stupidity.

Anyhow, from Phil Rushton on the Evo Psych List:

"There are four published articles just released on this issue from William
Dickens at Brookings, Charles Murray at AEI, and Profs. Arthur Jensen and
myself. Also a summarizing press release from me. I can send pdfs if anyone
contacts me by private email.

"Race-IQ Gap Remains; Findings Could Undermine Affirmative Action Policies

" PORT HURON, Mich., Nov. 9 (AScribe Newswire) -- Despite widespread
claims that the gap is closing between Blacks and Whites in educational
achievement and intelligence test scores, new research shows the 15-point IQ
difference is as large today as it was 100 years ago.

" A study published in the October 2006 issue of Psychological Science
showed the same Black-White IQ difference in large standardization samples
for four major IQ tests.

" The researchers reported on the Wonderlic Personnel Test, the
Kaufmann Assessment Battery for Children, the Woodcock-Johnson test, and the
Differential Ability Scale, which all combined to show a Black gain of less
than 1 IQ point over the last 30 years.

" The study's authors were veteran IQ researchers J. Philippe Rushton
of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University
of California at Berkeley.

" Rushton and Jensen's article countered claims made in the same
journal by William Dickens of the Brookings Institute and James Flynn of the
University of Otago in New Zealand, who had presented data showing the
Black-White IQ differences narrowing by 4 to 7 points.

" 'Such claims have been routine over several decades,' said Prof.
Rushton. 'When the totality of the available evidence is examined, the
alleged evidence disappears.'


" ''The Black-White IQ difference in the United States has remained at
15 to 18 points, or 1.1 standard deviations, for nearly a century,' said
Rushton. 'It was first clearly established in 1917 by an analysis in the
U.S. Army of 23,596 Black draftees who had an IQ of 83 (vs. 100 for
Whites).'

" 'Military samples continued to show the same gap during World War II,
the Korean War, and the Vietnam War era,' he said.

The Black-White gap was also shown in 2001 in an analysis of
6,246,729 individuals from military, corporate, and higher education samples
published by Philip Roth and colleagues in Personnel Psychology.


Rushton and Jensen said their new study confirmed their earlier
conclusion that Black-White IQ differences are 80 percent heritable, an
estimate based on a review of the literature in the 2005 Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law. Rushton argued that given that the IQ differences were 80
percent genetic, no more than a 3-IQ point convergence would be possible.


Prof. Rushton said the results explained the under-representation of
Blacks in high IQ occupations.


Rushton also said the results could undermine affirmative action
policies as the US Supreme Court's 2003 decision on the University of
Michigan only being permitted affirmative-action on the assumption that
Black-White test scores were converging. That assumption has been shown to
be untrue.


Prof. Rushton said that his study was not the only one showing the
non-narrowing of the race differences. He pointed to Charles Murray's 2005
article in Commentary and the just published article by Murray in the
November-December issue of the Intelligence, which showed no narrowing on
the Peabody Achievement Tests.
- - - -

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2, Canada;
Rushton@uwo.ca, 519-661-3685

ON THE WEB: Article pdf:
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/fac...shton_pubs.htm

COMPLETE REFERENCE: Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006). The
totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains.
Psychological Science, 17, 921-922.

Daniel Wang November 12th, 2006 08:39 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
James, here is my question about IQ as a measure of human intelligence. If I spend my childhood at home studying math, while you are out there playing football, and I end up scoring higher on SAT or IQ tests, does that mean I'm smarter than you?

My casual observation of how much effort the main races put in studying is, Asians 10, Whites 5, Hispanics 2, Blacks 1. Now if Asians were to put in one tenth of their current effort, I'm pretty sure they are going to end up scoring as low on IQ tests as blacks.

I think intelligence has a lot to do with how children are brought up by their parents, and different races have different cultures and child rearing practices. I do not like affirmative action either, but my reason is not genetics. I think it is high time that all these cultures (African, Asian, Hispanic, Arabic, etc) received an objective scrutiny.

Fred H. November 13th, 2006 10:16 AM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
Quote:

[Wang asks:] If I spend my childhood at home studying math, while you are out there playing football, and I end up scoring higher on SAT or IQ tests, does that mean I'm smarter than you?
Think of it this way, Wang—if a white kid dedicates his life to being a great running back, the NFL is probably still going to pick the black kid over any white hype.

Tell you what, Wang—next Sunday tune in your Sony to an NFL game and, using some of that math you’ve been studying, observe the color of the various running backs and see if you can make any casual observations.

Daniel Wang November 13th, 2006 04:34 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
Fred, I fully understand your sentiment. Like I said, I'm against affirmative action.

But you didn't really answer my question. My point is, children who consistently spend more effort on math and science, either due to their own interest or more often parental enforcement, do well on these tests. If a culture dictates parental enforcement, however cruel it is, then that race will excell on these tests.

I do not believe the high IQs of East Asians as a whole has anything to do with their genes (individual cases may be different).

Fred H. November 13th, 2006 06:36 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
Sure, I suppose attributes such as work ethic, conscientiousness, morality, etc. will impact IQ, but then such things themselves are almost certainly influenced by genes.

Read the materials/scientists that JimB references, and if you’re still not convinced that IQ/intelligence is essentially innate, try teaching higher math (or conscientiousness) to kids at the low end of the bell curve.

Which explains why a woman, when looking for Mr. Right, Mr. Wang (it would have worked better if you had been a "Wong"), is really only interested in whatever is in his genes, and maybe his assets.

Daniel Wang November 13th, 2006 07:47 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
I read some studies done by professionals on Asian psychology. One of these was conducted in the 1970s by Canadian scientists. They tested six month old babies of Asian immigrants and found that they were passive compared to Western/white babies. Their conclusion: passivity is in the Asian gene.

I know for a fact that is not true. As I have detailed in The Confucian Mind, passivity which is typical of Asians is a direct result and intended effect of Confucian family training. Back then Asian parents started the training early, especially if they wanted their babies to behave in front of strangers, so as to save their “face”. Now the training is usually delayed about two years. So if the same test is done today, one would find passivity in three year olds but not six month olds.

The problem with these studies is that Western scientists generally have no idea of what happens in the family of non-Western peoples. There is a lot of systematic abuse built in these cultures, in the core cultural values. What scientists wind up measuring is the result of these abuses and mental conditions, not genes.

If popular culture of blacks is such that reading a book is deemed “acting white”, and ridiculed by peers, it should not surprise anyone that they do poorly academically on average.

I’m inclined to believe that intelligence is largely a result of intensive brain activities in childhood, which in turn is largely determined by the prevailing child rearing practices of a particular culture, though individual cases may vary.

Fred H. November 14th, 2006 10:33 AM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
My mother tended to view sports negatively (both my parents lacked athletic ability), and that sports were mostly silly and a waste of time—and so I suppose one could theorize that I generally do poorly whenever I attempt things like golf, tennis, etc. b/c of my upbringing. OTOH, I suspect that even if I had been adopted and raised by Tiger Wood’s mother & father, I’d still be dreadful at golf.

So I no longer blame my parents or my upbringing or the culture or the Republicans for my shortcomings in areas like athletic ability and/or intelligence—rather I blame mostly the genes that my parents passed on to me.

It seems that life is often not fair, and that we simply must play the hand we’re dealt . . . although I myself am sometimes able to cheat a bit by taking certain drugs to compensate somewhat for my limited intelligence (although I haven’t found anything to help with my limited athletic ability . . . I guess I lack the balls to try steroids).

Daniel Wang November 14th, 2006 07:27 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
There is a difference between sports, which is related to physical ability, and intelligence, which is a mental faculty.

Genes play a big part in our physical appearance and ability, our skin color, proportion of limbs, etc. The brain is born a blank slate with a great potential. I think our intelligence is mostly limited by how much that potential is explored, and here is where culture comes into play.

There is a lot of unknowns in this field, and I don't pretend I know the answer to everything. But I do see a major fallacy in the logic employed by some of these professional studies. It basically goes like this: a phenomenon is observed in a given ethnic group (high IQ, passivity, etc), without knowing there is a cultural reason for it, researchers attribute it to genetics.

If you don't believe passivity is a direct consequence of Confucian training, read my book The Confucian Mind, then tell me you are not convinced. I believe I proved it beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with the view that people need to take responsibility for themselves, instead of blaming others. That's why we need to investigate child rearing practices in families of slave cultures (Asians, for example), and address the issue that slave mentality is being perpetuated in the family. Only people with a free mentality who have a sense of ownership of the rules/laws can voluntarily abide by rules out of moral conviction. If you grew up in an environment where you were treated like a slave by your parents, then your dominating emotion is fear, and you are not disposed to take responsibility for anything, because you were never given decision making autonomy and took ownerhsip of your decisions as a child.

Fred H. November 14th, 2006 10:26 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
Ok Daniel, I’ll take your word for it regarding the passivity thing.

But regarding intelligence, Arthur Jensen, a prominent UC Berkeley supergrade professor emeritus of education psychology, known for his work in psychometrics and differential psychology, is a leading authority on IQ, and has provided an enormous amount of overwhelming evidence (including the work of various other scientists/authorities) regarding the innateness of intelligence in his various papers and books.

So I’d suggest that if in fact you haven’t already made up your mind on this intelligence thing, then read, study, and consider Jensen’s book, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998).

Nice chatting with you.

Daniel Wang November 14th, 2006 11:31 PM

Re: Rushton on BW IQ
 
Fred, I will read that book. Thank you.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.