More Race and PC problems at Harvard

[Happy Ent]

Are blacks really bad at passing on smart-genes or […]

The phenomenon is called regression to the mean, discovered by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin).

Children don’t inherit only their parents genes. They inherit their ancestor’s genes. So children will move towards the average traits of the population they belong to, even if their parents were outliers. So the hereditary hypothesis predicts that the child of two IQ 120 Black doctors will underperform relative to her parents, and relative to the other children in her (good, rich neighbourhood) school. Enviromental explanations are challenged by these findings, and need to posit non-hereditary mechanisms that exactly mimic the effect expected from hereditary mechanisms.

See section 9 of the Rushton–Jensen survey. For example,

Jensen (1973, pp. 107–119) tested the regression predictions with data from siblings (900 White sibling pairs and 500 Black sibling pairs). These provide an even better test than parent–offspring comparisons because siblings share very similar environments. Black and White children matched for IQ had siblings who had regressed approximately halfway to their respective population means rather than to the mean of the combined population. For example, when Black children and White children were matched with IQs of 120, the siblings of Black children averaged close to 100, whereas the siblings of White children averaged close to 110. A reverse effect was found with children matched at the lower end of the IQ scale. When Black children and White children are matched for IQs of 70, the siblings of the Black children averaged about 78, whereas the siblings of the White children averaged about 85. The regression line showed no significant departure from linearity throughout the range of IQ from 50 to 150, as predicted by genetic theory but not by culture-only theory.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Ran

Hrm. I find it difficult to see how agnosticism on the question is an unreasonable position to take, to be honest. While I strongly believe cultural and environmental factors explain pretty much all differences across average populations (including factors we just don't really have a grasp of), I've never seen a smoking gun that 100% proved this was absolutely the case, and so it's not far-fetched to suspend judgment.

Not all questions are value-neutral to start with, though. For instance, the infamous question of "when did you stop beating your wife." Is it reasonable to also keep to an agnostic view on that? How about "Are Jews genetically greedy and manipulative?" Can we keep an agnostic approach to that, as well?

If not, then why should we tolerate "Is there a genetic component to black people's inferior intelligence?"

Re: Happy Ent

But I see that several lucid board members have actually come out with statements that are concordant with the environment-only hypothesis, so forgive me for keeping the position alive.)

In the beginning paragraphs of the Rushton-Jensen paper you cited, the authors admitted to collapsing several groups into the "environment only" camp for the ease of constructing their argument. I think that makes their entire argument rather suspect, myself, because it's essentially saying that anyone who's not a neo-conservative is a liberal, because, well, effectively, by not being neo-conservative, they're liberal! It is no surprise that many of their colleagues feel that they have set up a strawman (you see that in some of the rebuttals).

Re: FLoW

I just want to mention that if we didn't break down people into racial/ethnic groups for purposes of supposedly "helping" them, we wouldn't have to engage in this kind of nauseating analyses.

Seriously?

How's about if the U.S. had not had systemic racism that targets people based on perceived skin color to render them unfair, inequitable, and unjustifiably discriminatory treatments in all facets of life, we wouldn't have to struggle with a way to help these historically disadvantaged groups? That shoe fits, too?

The breaking-down of people into racial groups was not an invention of the liberal left. We're just trying to clean up the mess that was made by the racists of the past. I find your comment quoted there to be rather hilarious, but in a sad way, similar to your earlier comment in another thread about how race was not a factor in the forming of this country. I can well see how the two ideas of yours go hand-in-hand, and it does have at least intellectual consistency.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

If not, then why should we tolerate "Is there a genetic component to black people's inferior intelligence?"

But is that the question that is being asked? Or is it a causal question to explain an observable phenomenon, which may have roots in either cultural or genetic explanations?

[Aemon Stark]

But is that the question that is being asked? Or is it a causal question to explain an observable phenomenon, which may have roots in either cultural or genetic explanations?

"Cultural" is not the same as "environmental", though the latter could be said to include the former.

In any case, I came across this book (link to the review by Malcolm Gladwell) at the library today:

The book begins with a description of what has generally become known as "the Flynn Effect": the steady rise from one generation to the next in average scores on IQ tests over time. Flynn notes that this effect apparently contradicts some fundamental beliefs about IQ long held by intelligence researchers, and categorizes these contradictions into four seeming "paradoxes":

1. the factor analysis paradox - past research has shown evidence for a single factor, "g" or general intelligence, underlying IQ. However, the Flynn Effect happens to different degrees in the sub-tests of the WISC intelligence test, suggesting that intelligence as measured by IQ tests is multidimensional. Flynn poses this as: "how can intelligence be both one and many at the same time".

2. the intelligence paradox - the Flynn effect shows significant improvements in IQ over a short time scale, yet we do not notice in everyday life that young people are significantly smarter than their parents or grandparents.

3. the mental retardation paradox - the IQ level commonly associated with mental retardation is 75. If the Flynn effect is extrapolated back to 1900 the mean IQ would be somewhere between 50 and 70 - that is the average person in 1900 would have been mentally retarded by modern IQ norms.

4. the identical twins paradox - past IQ research has shown a close relation between the IQs of identical twins reared separately; a fact used as evidence for a genetic basis for differences in IQ. The rapid changes in IQ shown by the Flynn effect suggest, conversely, that environmental factors have a greater influence on IQ than genes.

Much of the remainder of the book is then devoted to proposing possible ways to resolve these inconsistencies, outlining along the way a reconceptualization of "intelligence" and how it might be better measured and studied.

[TrueMetis]

The phenomenon is called regression to the mean, discovered by Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin).

What was the point of adding the bit about him being Darwin's cousin? Kind of irrelevant don't you think?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

"Cultural" is not the same as "environmental", though the latter could be said to include the former.

Good point, but I think that's a fine thin line, as culture frequently contains an environmental assumption.

In any case, I came across this book (link to the review by Malcolm Gladwell) at the library today:

And what do you think of the final findings, namely that "that environmental factors have a greater influence on IQ than genes"?

[Emo Targaryen]

The very question is implicitly racist and I see zero indication that the motivations behind this research derives from anything else.

Science is about data, not about motivation. She may be a whore, not caring who takes her to bed, but she'll treat everyone to the same truth, no matter what it was he wanted. Conducted properly, a scientific survey should produce the same result whether instigated by racists or by anti-racists.

Similar arguments are made now for why Haiti, to take one example, is a "failed state".

Well, I think it is a worthwhile enterprise to find the causes for failing of states so we could do our best to prevent it. Of course it might make us feel a bit powerless if these causes were found to be mainly factors we can't change (like local climate or racial makeup of the population), but again, science doesn't care whether we like its results.

"Not available" in the sense of not able to be calculated.

Yes. So we should keep all options open and not act upon presumption of one of these options. For the whole premise of Affirmative Action is the belief that any racial disparities in e.g. college admission exams are caused by institutional racism. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis - but, just as you said, "not available" in the sense of not able to be calculated.

Rushton himself currently heads the aforementioned Pioneer Fund. Whatever their stated mandate, they seem to be rather heavily involved in funding "research" that conforms to the racist beliefs of their founders.

I don't know about the available studies about this topic - does research in this direction exist which is not funded by the Pioneer Fund and does this research generate fundamentally different outcomes? If yes, this would indeed be reason for suspicion.

the two effects are themselves correlated.

Which makes it harder to predict how much the outcome would change if we were to radically alter the environment - but we could still assert the existence of a genetic influence and even its relative strength compared to the environment, by measuring the correlations of both causes with the outcome separately, each time controlling for the respective other influence.

@好土同志:

Not all questions are value-neutral to start with, though. For instance, the infamous question of "when did you stop beating your wife." Is it reasonable to also keep to an agnostic view on that? How about "Are Jews genetically greedy and manipulative?" Can we keep an agnostic approach to that, as well?

Both questions contain a statement ("you did beat your wife"/"Jews are greedy and manipulative") which we should turn into a question first ("did you ever beat your wife"/"Are Jews greedy and manipulative"). As for the latter, while I hold to the belief that this isn't the case, I don't think asking this question is inherently racist and can only beget racist answers. In fact, I think the best way to deal with any prejudice is to conduct a scientific research on it whose (negative) results we could then slap into the face of anyone still holding to his (now scientifically proven to be mere) prejudice.

However, if we try this with race and intelligence, I take it that we actually find that intelligence as measured with IQ tests is lower for the black population than for the whites. So now we have to search for the reasons. Possible explanations range from institutional racism to bad influence of "black culture" to genetic predisposition. And as far as I know there has as yet been no research able to pin one of these explanations as the main cause. There is, however, a policy called "Affirmative Action" which is based on the premise that one of these explanations, namely institutional racism, is the main cause, if not the only cause of this phenomenon.

This being said, I have to add that I personally would prefer if people were treated as individuals and measured by their personal merits instead of their classification into one or another group. A student with IQ 120 has the same right to be admitted to medical school whether he's black or white, IMO. Neither should he be denied just because of his skin color, as has been the cause many times in the past, nor should he be admitted just because of it, as a "representant of his race" instead of as a representant of his own intellect.

[Aemon Stark]

Science is about data, not about motivation. She may be a whore, not caring who takes her to bed, but she'll treat everyone to the same truth, no matter what it was he wanted. Conducted properly, a scientific survey should produce the same result whether instigated by racists or by anti-racists.

Raw data is very rarely presented. It may be improperly collected, the metrics may be flawed (do read James Flynn's book), and preformed bias may and often does influence the inclusion or exclusion of evidence affecting the conclusions. I still rather doubt that the standards of "g" research meet those required for, say, the approval of new drugs.

Well, I think it is a worthwhile enterprise to find the causes for failing of states so we could do our best to prevent it. Of course it might make us feel a bit powerless if these causes were found to be mainly factors we can't change (like local climate or racial makeup of the population), but again, science doesn't care whether we like its results.

I think the "racial" explanation is odious. Are Asians genetically predisposed to autocratic regimes too? One thing I've started to wonder is how IQ differs within subpopulations within a single "race". Are Caucasians the same all over the US?

Yes. So we should keep all options open and not act upon presumption of one of these options. For the whole premise of Affirmative Action is the belief that any racial disparities in e.g. college admission exams are caused by institutional racism. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis - but, just as you said, "not available" in the sense of not able to be calculated.

Except that there is a very documented recent history of institutional racism. Its existence - in the past at the very least - is not in question.

I don't know about the available studies about this topic - does research in this direction exist which is not funded by the Pioneer Fund and does this research generate fundamentally different outcomes? If yes, this would indeed be reason for suspicion.

I can't speak for all the research, but all the "big names" are connected to it: Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, etc.

Which makes it harder to predict how much the outcome would change if we were to radically alter the environment - but we could still assert the existence of a genetic influence and even its relative strength compared to the environment, by measuring the correlations of both causes with the outcome separately, each time controlling for the respective other influence.

That assumes we actually know which variables to control for. And it's not really that hard to predict the results when, for example, we consider an outcome like health status (see the social determinants of health). The problem comes when genetics are treated as uniquely or separately determining an outcome separate from social, economic, or environmental variables. It's not an "either-or" question, but a matter of which variables are significantly associated with the outcome of interest, be it IQ or cancer mortality rates.

@好土同志:

Both questions contain a statement ("you did beat your wife"/"Jews are greedy and manipulative") which we should turn into a question first ("did you ever beat your wife"/"Are Jews greedy and manipulative"). As for the latter, while I hold to the belief that this isn't the case, I don't think asking this question is inherently racist and can only beget racist answers. In fact, I think the best way to deal with any prejudice is to conduct a scientific research on it whose (negative) results we could then slap into the face of anyone still holding to his (now scientifically proven to be mere) prejudice.

Asking that question is inherently racist. You may disagree, but on this you are simply wrong and little more than a stereotype. Should we add "Are Asians inherently bad drivers?" to the mix?

This being said, I have to add that I personally would prefer if people were treated as individuals and measured by their personal merits instead of their classification into one or another group. A student with IQ 120 has the same right to be admitted to medical school whether he's black or white, IMO. Neither should he be denied just because of his skin color, as has been the cause many times in the past, nor should he be admitted just because of it, as a "representant of his race" instead of as a representant of his own intellect.

I tend to agree.

[Happy Ent]

Science is about data, not about motivation.

It’s primarily about data. But motivation can be a useful data point in evaluating a theory. We do that all the time when we look at lung cancer research (are the paid for by the tobacco industry?), antropogenic climate changes, etc. Everything that is politically charged, and one does well in examining the source of the data. Of course, as soon as it’s peer-reviewed, much of this criticism goes away.

That is the bigger problem with Aemon’s argument: it cuts both ways. Rushton may be politically motivated. But so are Gould (that lying scumbag), Lewontin, and Malcom Gladwell. Moreover, Rusthon and Jensen are trained psychologists (and Jensen is one of the most respected researchers in the field, a whole edition of the scientific journal Intelligence was devoted to Jensen, with the subtitle “A King among Men”) who publish in peer-reviewed venues. Gould was a palaeontologist, and Gladwell is a journalist who would recognise and eigenvalue if it hit him in the face. They publish books or newspaper columns that do not pass peer review.

So motivation is an interesting (yet minor) factor, but it cuts both ways. I’ll take the views on nature versus nurture from a neo-Lysenkoist with a grain of salt. Especially if it’s not peer reviewed. And that is a good, first-approximation strategy.

[Happy Ent]

This being said, I have to add that I personally would prefer if people were treated as individuals and measured by their personal merits instead of their classification into one or another group.

Do note that this is the recommendation of the vilified The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, so it’s not a value-free or harmless position to hold.

[Emo Targaryen]

Should we add "Are Asians inherently bad drivers?" to the mix?

Again, this is a question which contains a statement ("Asians are bad drivers") which would have to be evaluated first - and no, I don't think looking for a correlation between race, ethnicity or nationality and driving skills is inherently racist. In contrary, barring science from asking such question gives rise to racist conspiracy theories. If Asians were indeed found to be worse drivers, then we could look for the reasons. There could be institutional racism (driving instructors having less confidence in Asian learners), cultural issues (machismo leads to aggressive driving and speeding) or indeed genetic factors. Note that even proof for genetic factors would in no way mean Asians were "inferior" or should be generally banned from driving - it would just mean we can't accuse driving instructors of racism if their Asian learners don't pass driving exams and that we certainly can't lower standards for Asian drivers to "make up for the institutional racism" - aka Affirmative Action.

@Happy Ent: Yes, we need to be sceptic if research is funded e.g. by the tobacco industry. This doesn't mean however that we can unconditionally assume pure honesty and scientific rigour if we find no obvious ties (or if the ties lead to the "good guys") - but that's exactly what's behind most accusations of "paid" or "ideological" research.

[Ormond]

and Gladwell is a journalist who would recognise and eigenvalue if it hit him in the face. They publish books or newspaper columns that do not pass peer review.

I'm sorry, but you are completely glossing over the fact that the Gladwell article linked to is quite specifically a review of the work of James Flynn, who has published many peer reviewed articles in the field and who is on the editorial board of Intelligence, the same journal whose special issue you cite as evidence that Jensen is "well-respected."

Do you think Gladwell's review misrepresents Flynn's research? Have you read any of Flynn's original papers? How do you incorporate the "Flynn effect" into your personal understanding of this issue?

[Happy Ent]

Do you think Gladwell's review misrepresents Flynn's research?

No. I was making a more general statement about Gould and Lewontin and Gladwell, which was not aimed specifically at his review of Flynn.

Have you read any of Flynn's original papers? How do you incorporate the "Flynn effect" into your personal understanding of this issue?

No. I've read one of his books, though. Seems like great stuff.

I don't see a big problem with the Flynn effect. Obviously, IQ is highly susceptible to environmental effects, just as height. Only a madman would deny that. (The "Flynn effect" was popularised by the original Bell Curve book, which also coined the term.) Jensen makes a more technical argument based on the "g factor" (on which the Flynn effect seems to be zero), but in truth I never had the energy to sit down and truly understand that.

EDIT: You seem to work under the assumption that I believe that IQ is 100% genetically determined, and moreover that mainstream sciences has accepted that fact. Only a madman would think that. The claim I'm making is that (1) the question about a partly genetic explanation of cognitive ability between groups is valid and the topic of active research. Moreover, (2) it is taboo, and (3) this is an outrage.

Personally, I care not one whit about the "real-real" reason behind social phenomena in a country I don't live in. Honestly. The thing I'm interested in is science and its role (or chances) in the public debate. There are a number of fault lines along which the established orthodoxy and science clash, for entirely ideological reasons. Mostly these are about human evolution: the preposterous claim that homo sapiens is just an animal whose behaviour is the product of callous nature, with all the attendant ugliness. There are other fault lines, such as antropogenic global warming. What interests me is the behaviour of people who employ selective scientism: who will grandstand about the neutrality and general awesomeness of the scientific method when they can hit a Creationist over the head, but become active practitioners of crimestop when one of their own ideological maxims is under attack.

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

(Orwell, 1948, because this is a F/SF board.)

[Ran]

Richard Nesbitt calls into question the thoroughness of the review that Rushton and Jensen published (which HE has previously linked), explicitly indicating that they purposefully slanted their review to support their positions. He cites several examples which he believes speak strongly against hereditarian arguments in relation to the "Black-White gap", and which they've ommitted or seriously downplayed in their review.

I wonder if they ever rebutted his response.

[Happy Ent]

I wonder if they ever rebutted his response.

Yes, same journal issue.

[Ran]

Thanks.

I notice that they sidestep the adoption studies Nesbitt raised, for the most part. Particularly the Tizard, Cooperman, Tizard study, which I find interesting but which earns very little notice from Rushton and Jensen. I see Flynn gave it a much more serious consideration in Race, IQ, and Jensen, which contains tables with some of the Tizard, Cooperman, and Tizard results.

[slim da reaper]

If we hadn't broken people down into racial/ethnic groups for the purpose of disenfranchising, exploiting, enslaving and exterminating them,

Absolutely agree.

we would have to engage in suppsedly helping them.

Help them to help themselves, huge huge world of difference. 'Just' 'helping' is another form of the three e's (exploitation, enslavement and extermination.) Help others to help themselves, so good it's worth repeating haha.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Emo Targaryen

@好土同志:

Both questions contain a statement ("you did beat your wife"/"Jews are greedy and manipulative") which we should turn into a question first ("did you ever beat your wife"/"Are Jews greedy and manipulative"). As for the latter, while I hold to the belief that this isn't the case, I don't think asking this question is inherently racist and can only beget racist answers. In fact, I think the best way to deal with any prejudice is to conduct a scientific research on it whose (negative) results we could then slap into the face of anyone still holding to his (now scientifically proven to be mere) prejudice.

And the question "Is there a genetic factor to black people's inferior intelligence" does not contain the statement "black people are less intelligent"? I am not sure what your point here is.

However, if we try this with race and intelligence, I take it that we actually find that intelligence as measured with IQ tests is lower for the black population than for the whites.

Did you follow the earlier pages of this discussion? Some of us are not convinced that this is a fact, based on different objections ranging from the biological concept of race as a useful framework to use in this context to historical biases in these types of measurements.

So now we have to search for the reasons. Possible explanations range from institutional racism to bad influence of "black culture" to genetic predisposition. And as far as I know there has as yet been no research able to pin one of these explanations as the main cause.

Did you read the Rushton-Jensen paper that Happy Ent linked? Those authors quite happily claim that genetics is the cause for a separation of 15 points in IQ score between black people and white people. That seems like a pretty exact and pin-point type explanation to me.

There is, however, a policy called "Affirmative Action" which is based on the premise that one of these explanations, namely institutional racism, is the main cause, if not the only cause of this phenomenon.

But Affirmative Action does not speak to IQ score or intelligence. It was not set up to address the issue of alleged disparate intelligence that divides along racial lines.

nor should he be admitted just because of it, as a "representant of his race" instead of as a representant of his own intellect.

Is that how you think Affirmative Action works?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Re: FLoW

Seriously?

How's about if the U.S. had not had systemic racism that targets people based on perceived skin color to render them unfair, inequitable, and unjustifiably discriminatory treatments in all facets of life, we wouldn't have to struggle with a way to help these historically disadvantaged groups? That shoe fits, too?

The breaking-down of people into racial groups was not an invention of the liberal left. We're just trying to clean up the mess that was made by the racists of the past.

I understand the history. The fact is that certain methods of trying to compensate for that treatment mandate that we continue to view people as racial groups rather than individuals. Maybe you relish viewing people that way, but I don't. I find it sickening.

I find your comment quoted there to be rather hilarious, but in a sad way, similar to your earlier comment in another thread about how race was not a factor in the forming of this country. I can well see how the two ideas of yours go hand-in-hand, and it does have at least intellectual consistency.

I shouldn't be surprised that you again misquote and misrepresent a comment despite having that inaccuracy pointed out to you before. That's your style.

For the 4th time, I was pointing out that there is not an inherent "American" ethnicity, and that the founding of this country was therefore not motivated by a desire to provide a specific ethnicity with its own independent nation. To the extent this country had a predominant ethnicity at the time of the Revolution, it was English, which happened to be whom we were rebelling against. So ethnicity was not the motive for independence, and therefore a celebration of independence in this country does not contain an inherent ethnic component.

That is miles from saying that race was not a factor in the forming of the country, because clearly slavery existed and had to be addressed by the new nation.

[Happy Ent]

Did you read the Rushton-Jensen paper that Happy Ent linked? Those authors quite happily claim that genetics is the cause for a separation of 15 points in IQ score between black people and white people. That seems like a pretty exact and pin-point type explanation to me.

Just in case somebody actually still takes your claims at face value, here’s the closest thing to what you claim the paper says:

that about 50% of the variance in mean Black–White group differences in IQ is due to heredity (p. 280)