More Race and PC problems at Harvard

[Altherion]

It is not the burden of science to disprove that two groups are not equal. It is the burden of science to prove that they are not equal.

DrownedCrow already refuted this, but I want to emphasize something: "that they're not equal" is the one and only thing that has been conclusively proven so far. It is true by any meaningful measure: IQ tests, academic performance, presence in professions typically associated with intelligence -- you name it, the difference is there when looking at the entire available sample (i.e. the whole population). If you don't acknowledge that the inequality is there, then that is a separate issue. If you do acknowledge it, then the question becomes why and you have to start with a mixture of all possible causes in unknown proportions (any one of these proportions may be zero, but you'd have to prove that).

[TrueMetis]

If the IQ gap is not caused by genetic differences then logically it must be caused by environmental factors (that is, unless you can think of something that is neither genetic nor environmental). Therefore, saying that there is no genetic factor is the same as saying there is some environmental factor and is not any more valid as a null hypothesis. The only way around this is if you dispute that there is any IQ gap at all. However, the evidence is so overwhelming that I think we can take it as fact.

Because IQ tests are completely reliable.

[Aemon Stark]

If the IQ gap is not caused by genetic differences then logically it must be caused by environmental factors (that is, unless you can think of something that is neither genetic nor environmental). Therefore, saying that there is no genetic factor is the same as saying there is some environmental factor and is not any more valid as a null hypothesis. The only way around this is if you dispute that there is any IQ gap at all. However, the evidence is so overwhelming that I think we can take it as fact.

No. First, I would dispute that there is any kind of gap which can be consistently demonstrated and attributed to "racial" groups of one sort or another. Notwithstanding anything Happy Ent has ever posted in the past - and I would say that many of us have countered his claims and citations very effectively on multiple occasions - there are no genetic differences that explain or align with any such "gaps". There are no known genes for IQ or intelligence - at best, we can identify (in a very vague sense) certain pathologies that are genetic in etiology. For example, Down Syndrome results in mental retardation and corresponds to an extra copy of chromosome 21, i.e. *more* genetic material than in a normal person. But why should this result in diminished "intelligence"?

We don't know. But it does all the same, though it's important to point out that IQ measures only certain forms of abstract reasoning in specific situations and little else. Moreover, intelligence of any kind is absolutely a multifactorial trait, influenced not only by genetics and environment, but by the interaction between genes and their environment. Failure to consider such interactions represents piss-poor science and abysmal, incompetent statistics.

As for this law student, she's a moron and seems something of a "polite racist" who cloaks her prejudice in a lot of rhetorical scientism and (as Kat has pointed out) scientific illiteracy. While some "smart" people seem to think that being contrarian or a perennial devil's advocate is a marker for their intelligence, this episode illustrates nincely how wrong that is. Now, forwarding personal email is certainly unethical and suggests that she placed trust and assumed goodwill in the wrong people. But there's nothing illegal about forwarding an email, regardless of its content or the intent of the original sender. You can't prosecute someone for gossiping about you behind your back.

[Aemon Stark]

DrownedCrow already refuted this, but I want to emphasize something: "that they're not equal" is the one and only thing that has been conclusively proven so far. It is true by any meaningful measure: IQ tests, academic performance, presence in professions typically associated with intelligence -- you name it, the difference is there when looking at the entire available sample (i.e. the whole American population). If you don't acknowledge that the inequality is there, then that is a separate issue. If you do acknowledge it, then the question becomes why and you have to start with a mixture of all possible causes in unknown proportions (any one of these proportions may be zero, but you'd have to prove that).

But this law student was not merely discussing racially-correlated American socioeconomic inequality, but suggesting that - until proven otherwise - such disparities can be attributed to vaguely defined "genetic" (in the sense of hard-wired and immutable) differences. It is one thing to describe such disparities and quite another to attempt to explain them. I have little problem with descriptions, but given that the explanations frequently offered by "contrarians" carry implicit racist and prejudicial connotations (with, at the very least, a strong historical basis) I see little reason to take such "science" at face value.

[TrueMetis]

But there's nothing illegal about forwarding an email, regardless of its content or the intent of the original sender. You can't prosecute someone for gossiping about you behind your back.

Well she can't, but that because what's being said is true it's true.

[Tempra]

But this law student was not merely discussing racially-correlated American socioeconomic inequality, but suggesting that - until proven otherwise - such disparities can be attributed to vaguely defined "genetic" (in the sense of hard-wired and immutable) differences. It is one thing to describe such disparities and quite another to attempt to explain them. I have little problem with descriptions, but given that the explanations frequently offered by "contrarians" carry implicit racist and prejudicial connotations (with, at the very least, a strong historical basis) I see little reason to take such "science" at face value.

Let's not be misleading about what she ACTUALLY said:

"I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.

...

I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner."

That is VERY different from how you (and several others) are portraying what she is saying. She isn't saying "Blacks are dumber than whites. Prove me wrong."

[DrownedCrow]

There are no known genes for IQ or intelligence - at best, we can identify (in a very vague sense) certain pathologies that are genetic in etiology.

This isn't quite true. Several genes have been linked to intelligence including some involved in sphingolipid storage disorders and others such as DCLK1. And of course twins studies haveconclusively demonstrated that intelligence is heavily influenced by genetics. Also, multiple genes that are deregulated in Down syndrome have been linked to various neurological processes.

Because IQ tests are completely reliable.

IQ tests are reliable...at measuring IQ, which is what I was talking about. Of course, the Harvard student went beyond that to talk about general intelligence. Still, it seems highlu unlikely that IQ scores tell you nothing about real intelligence.

[Aemon Stark]

That is VERY different from how you (and several others) are portraying what she is saying. She isn't saying "Blacks are dumber than whites. Prove me wrong."

She is absolutely saying just that. She's saying "Blacks are definitely dumber than whites, and unless there's clear evidence otherwise, I think this is due to innate genetic differences." Does she phrase this as equivocally and politely as possible? Absolutely. Maybe you should stop selectively quoting her? Let's review, for the record:

Let's not be misleading about what she ACTUALLY said:

"I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner."

Not only is her claim that prenatal testosterone "accounts for variations" in math ability between (within??) genders extremely dubious, she has already failed to distinguish between a primary genetic explanation and effects relating to the prenatal environment. Twin studies are similarly dubious, something that has been mentioned elsewhere recently. Her comment about the orphanage in Nigeria - if taken even half seriously - betrays a fairly extreme form of genetic determinism, disregarding the enormous impact of nutrition, social environment, and access to educational and financial resources. That she is equivocating to doubtlessly avoid being overly offensive is clear.

@DrownedCrow: I fail to see what relevance sphingolipid storage disorders have to this discussion. Two copies of HEXA with Tay-Sachs mutations result in profound neurological impairment and degradation, necessarily affecting intelligence, but these IQ debates reside at the level of marginal physiological variation, not pathological differences.

[sologdin]

It is not the burden of science to disprove that two groups are not equal. It is the burden of science to prove that they are not equal.

yeah, the assumption of genetic inequality in the absence of genetic evidence is silly.

am nonetheless not understanding the debate. the law student is silly, but the discussion regarding intelligence testing is an important one, wherein the genetic argument is not unreasonable on its face.

e.g., such comments as--

It is not surprising considering the hard left slant of universities in this country,

--strike me as some kind of trolling irony. "hard left," tempra, is my avatar. the for-profit universities are moderate at most, with a marketer's committment to PC indentity politics. the hard left does not give a fuck about that stuff, truth be told, and generally considers it to be a distraction from the making of an economic revolution whereupon the fascists are shot and the capitalists expropriated.

[Tempra]

She is absolutely saying just that. She's saying "Blacks are definitely dumber than whites, and unless there's clear evidence otherwise, I think this is due to innate genetic differences." Does she phrase this as equivocally and politely as possible? Absolutely. Maybe you should stop selectively quoting her? Let's review, for the record:

You have failed to show any part of her statement that "absolutely" shows anything. And I quoted what has been considered the incendiary statements from her post. Hardly selective. The two statements are also the most directly on point.

Not only is her claim that prenatal testosterone "accounts for variations" in math ability between (within??) genders extremely dubious, she has already failed to distinguish between a primary genetic explanation and effects relating to the prenatal environment. Twin studies are similarly dubious, something that has been mentioned elsewhere recently. Her comment about the orphanage in Nigeria - if taken even half seriously - betrays a fairly extreme form of genetic determinism, disregarding the enormous impact of nutrition, social environment, and access to educational and financial resources. That she is equivocating to doubtlessly avoid being overly offensive is clear.

The rest of the statement adds absolutely nothing of substance to the determination of whether she believes "blacks are dumber than whites until proven otherwise." The correctness of her "proof" does not answer that question, which is why I omitted the statements.

It requires reading between the lines to get to your conclusion. As has been stated before, it is dangerous to do so when we lack the context of the discussion.

Even if we grant your assumptions, it should scare the heck out of anyone that such a statement should lead to character assassination. If trying to get her clerkship rescinded was not enough, there is a public call to have her expelled from law school. I would wager that someone has or is in the process of informing the appropriate state Bar in attempts to get her disqualified for lacking moral fitness to be a lawyer. But, hey, she was silly enough to "not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent." Her bad.

[TrueMetis]

IQ tests are reliable...at measuring IQ, which is what I was talking about. Of course, the Harvard student went beyond that to talk about general intelligence. Still, it seems highlu unlikely that IQ scores tell you nothing about real intelligence.

All it takes is for you not to be very good at english to score horribly on an IQ test. There is also the problem of IQ test made by different organizations using different questions and overall we can't be sure what the hell they measure. I've done multiple IQ tests and always gotten completely different scores, hell I've done the same IQ test multiple times and gotten completely different scores.

[sologdin]

hell I've done the same IQ test multiple times and gotten completely different scores.

you are obviously genetically less intelligent than yourself. you'd know that already if you hadn't received a lower score than yourself on one of your tests.

[DrownedCrow]

@DrownedCrow: I fail to see what relevance sphingolipid storage disorders have to this discussion. Two copies of HEXA with Tay-Sachs mutations result in profound neurological impairment and degradation, necessarily affecting intelligence, but these IQ debates reside at the level of marginal physiological variation, not pathological differences.

I'm not talking about people suffering from Tay-Sachs. I'm refering to the idea that there is a heterozygote advantage associated with HEXA and other genes implicated in neurological disorders that affects intelligence, and furthermore that the prevalence of these mutations in the Ashkenazi population explains their higher IQs. I don't know if this hypothesis is correct but there is some evidence for it.

[Aemon Stark]

You have failed to show any part of her statement that "absolutely" shows anything. And I quoted what has been considered the incendiary statements from her post. Hardly selective. The two statements are also the most directly on point.

The rest of the statement adds absolutely nothing of substance to the determination of whether she believes "blacks are dumber than whites until proven otherwise." The correctness of her "proof" does not answer that question, which is why I omitted the statements.

She is not offering proof but expanding upon her position in ways that absolutely confirm my (and the general) interpretation.

It requires reading between the lines to get to your conclusion. As has been stated before, it is dangerous to do so when we lack the context of the discussion.

What fucking nonsense. I am only "reading between the lines" in the sense that I am discussing the sentences which you carefully omitted from your selective quotations. Exactly what additional context do we need to add to a 500 word email?

Even if we grant your assumptions, it should scare the heck out of anyone that such a statement should lead to character assassination. If trying to get her clerkship rescinded was not enough, there is a public call to have her expelled from law school. I would wager that someone has or is in the process of informing the appropriate state Bar in attempts to get her disqualified for lacking moral fitness to be a lawyer. But, hey, she was silly enough to "not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent." Her bad.

I don't necessarily condone the fallout of this fiasco, but your attempt to make her into some kind of innocent martyr for free speech is ineffectual.

[Aemon Stark]

I'm not talking about people suffering from Tay-Sachs. I'm refering to the idea that there is a heterozygote advantage associated with HEXA and other genes implicated in neurological disorders that affects intelligence, and furthermore that the prevalence of these mutations in the Ashkenazi population explains their higher IQs. I don't know if this hypothesis is correct but there is some evidence for it.

What evidence? I've heard of a hypothesized heterozygote advantage as regards TB survival* (certainly a lot more plausible than "intelligence"), but little else. And I don't buy the "higher IQ" studies re: Ashkenazis for a second as having any conclusion descriptive much less explanatory significance. I have my doubts that such results could have been duplicated in the not-too-distant past or that they will be maintained in the future. Ashkenazis represent a well-studied population, but sometimes a founder effect is just a founder effect. We have an interesting array of peculiar genetic and familial diseases here in Nova Scotia, but I've yet to encounter claims that our poor standing in national test scores can be attributed to the prevalence of Fabry disease in the population.

*Interestingly, my late grandfather was a Tay-Sachs carrier and contracted TB in his teens. He was also colourblind. A single case doesn't prove anything, but you'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate a heterozygote advantage in a blatantly multifactorial trait like intelligence. IQ's not a bad measure, I suppose, but something like HEXA *destroys* intelligence, it doesn't produce it.

[sio]

then I'll start to consider the statement you claim to be "fact" is worth thinking about.

The statement I claimed to be fact is fact.

Read it again: "on average, black people score lower on IQ tests than white people."

Take a deep breath. Try to see past the kneejerk reaction, to what I actually said.

And again: "on average, black people score lower on IQ tests than white people."

Unless you're about to spin me some epic tale about how David Ike was right and the American Psychological Association is actually controlled by giant alien lizards with telekinetic powers that they use to render the researchers incapable of calculating the mean of a dataset, can we please move on to the real issue?

[Shryke]

A person cannot seek legal redress unless it is a government actor, correct.

The question is whether, in an academic setting, parties should be disrupting the free flow of information because they disagree with it. I think the answer to that is no. We should encourage frank discussion, even about subjects we do not like.

There are appropriate ways to respond to speech you don't like, such as ignoring it. Making it impossible for a person to speak, because you disagree with him, should not be an acceptable means of protesting at universities. Small groups of extremists can deny others the opportunity to hear differing opinions.

I'm frankly puzzled that so many people think this is acceptable.

Because a frank discussion on subjects doesn't mean inviting any old moron off the street to talk about it.

Coulter is just some moron from the street. There's no reason to listen to anything she has to say.

[Happy Ent]

She is absolutely saying just that. She's saying "Blacks are definitely dumber than whites, and unless there's clear evidence otherwise, I think this is due to innate genetic differences." Does she phrase this as equivocally and politely as possible? Absolutely. Maybe you should stop selectively quoting her?

You have a strange way of using quotation marks, but let me try being charitable and read past that…

Aemon, would you agree that her "equivocal and polite" phrasing is largely concordant with a scientific hypotheses that is entertained by a large, respected, and active research community?

(I'm not asking if you, or polite and educated people in general, agree with the interests or findings of that research community. I'm asking if you agree that she formulates a line of reasoning that is seriously entertained by serious scholars and is the basis of a lot of research.)

Would you go so far as to characterise the following axioms of her as scientific mainstream: that intelligence is a functionally significant and measurable trait, that intelligence (thus measured) is highly heritable within populations, that the degree of sub-saharan recent ancestry varies significantly between the (cultural) US census categories Black and Caucasian, and that there is a gap in cognitive performance (of, for example, IQ, but also many other traits) between these groups of around one standard deviation that has been stable over the last two generations?

Again, I'm not asking if you think these axioms are true or false, or uncomfortable, or inflammatory. I'm asking if you agree that they represent the scientific mainstream (you can say "scientific consensus" or "large fraction of scientists" if you want to change the parameters a bit) or if you believe them to be fringe positions.

(Let me relink to the Snyderman Rothman study (@ Wikipedia), which together with its links, could speed these things up, provided anyone read it.)

ETA: In fact, the linked Wikipedia page contains this little gem "the majority [of academics] believe that Blacks are genetically inferior" (Kouyate and Taylor, 2003). This is, of course, an outrageously inflammatory formulation (I have never seen a race–intelligence paper using the term “inferior” — the preposterous idea that being less intelligent makes you inferior comes strictly form the liberal left), but (modulo the invective) close to the point I want to make: the law student merely says what science is saying.

[Aemon Stark]

I'm not going to get into this again. First, heritability is a matter of individual, not group variation. Second, the APA's review from 15 years ago disagrees with the notion that the gap has been stable:

African Americans. The relatively low mean of the distribution of African-American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites (Loehlin et al, 1975; Jensen, 1980; Reynolds et al, 1987). The difference is largest on those tests (verbal or non-verbal) that best represent the general intelligence factor g (Jensen, 1985). It is possible, however, that this differential is diminishing. In the most recent re-standardization of the Stanford-Binet test, the Black/White differential was 13 points for younger children and 10 points for older children (Thorndike et al, 1986). In several other studies of children since 1980, the Black mean has consistently been over 90 and the differential has been in single digits (Vincent, 1991). Larger and more definitive studies are needed before this trend can be regarded as established.

Another reason to think the IQ mean might be changing is that the Black/ White differential in achievement scores has diminished substantially in the last few years. Consider, for example, the mathematics achievement of five year olds as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The differential between Black and White scores, about 1.1 standard deviations as recently as 1978, had shrunk to .65 SD by 1990 (Grissmer et al, 1994) because of Black gains. Hispanics showed similar but smaller gains; there was little change in the scores of Whites. Other assessments of school achievement also show substantial recent gains in the performance of minority children.

In their own analysis of these gains, Grissmer et al (1994) cite both demographic factors and the effects of public policy. They found the level of parents' education to be a particularly good predictor of children's' school achievement; that level increased for all groups between 1970 and 1990, but most sharply for Blacks. Family size was another good predictor (children from smaller families tend to achieve higher scores); here too, the largest change over time was among Blacks. Above and beyond these demographic effects, Grissmer et al believe that some of the gains can be attributed to the many specific programs, geared to the education of minority children, that were implemented during that period.

Where's the stability? Have more recent data? Produce it.

It's further interesting to note that this now fairly old review mentions the significance of IQ as a predictor of social and occupational attainment while finding decidedly mixed results regarding its significance to theories/understandings of cognition. That IQ scores represent a good predictor of such outcomes says nothing about heritability or genetics or environment, but serve as a proxy for whatever configuration of qualities predicts future outcomes.

[Noontidal]

This situation kinda reminds me of when I explained to co-workers at my steel mill that I firmly believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt... Except they didn't demand I be fired or a host of other things. :o