If you’ve been here for a while, you’ll know I can’t resist a hot-button issue that people are unwilling or unable to think about carefully. So when faced with a hot-button issue that’s literally about thinking, well, how could I resist? In my article, What If Black People Are Just Stupid, I explored the question of racial IQ differences. I asked whether IQ is a neutral way of measuring intelligence or, indeed, whether it’s even possible to measure intelligence in a culturally neutral way. I asked whether apparent “racial” differences were more likely to be cultural than genetic. And I pointed out that our genes influence many, many differences beyond the colour of our skin.
Measurement of intelligence is a difficult matter. Ignore cultural biases and you will get wildly differing results from people of comparable intelligence. Work too hard to eliminate bias and you will get an IQ of 100 for everyone.
The single metric is just wrong. There need to be at least six distinct metrics. I can't remember them all and Google is hopeless, returning results on intelligence in the espionage sense. A few:
* mathematical ability
* spatial visualization
* language acquisition
* athletic ability
I score high on some, dismally on others.
One big problem is the extent to which intelligence skills have been exercised. I can do arithmetic in my head very well and any time I was stuck at a stoplight I would factor the six-digit number on the license plate in front of me into its prime factors so I got a lot of practice. OTOH I don't have a lot of athletic skill and in high school it took me the entire basketball season to be able to reliably shoot a basket and then the season was over.
3D is an interesting one because it's purely intelligence; we have been out of trees too long for thinking in 3D to be hard-wired. Parrots would score 500 on a 3D test, cats would score 500 on athletic IQ.
It's been a long time since I took an actual intelligence test but I remember being told I am not a genius but a lot closer to genius than to average. So what. Tensors mystify me though they are just one layer of abstraction atop math I know pretty well.
There is no evidence that black people are dumber than white people, but African cultures tend to include a lot more discursive (storytelling) tradition than logical and this inhibits the intellectual skills that lead to high scores on IQ tests. A lot of tests are based on recognition of patterns; a series of numbers, what is the next in the series? Not everyone thinks about numbers.
"The Bell Curve" was a deeply biased book; SJ Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a much better text. Murray set out to show that black people are dumb and his predetermined conclusion drove his analysis.
So let me clear my throat and say I deeply, deeply neither wish nor suspect that Murray is remotely right. My suspicion is that the genetic roots of what we call “intelligence” are multi-layered and ultimately overpowered by cultural factors anyway.
That said, the crude categories of “race” (erroneous as they are) are not just arbitrarily based on skin color. A Cherokee, a Filipino, an Ethiopian, and an Afghani person could all have the exact same shade of skin and hair but we consider them 4 different “races.” To the extent that “race” has any meaning whatsoever, it is on the basis of how far back a group of people share a common genetic ancestor. Members of subpopulations that reproduced in isolation from other groups developed common genetic traits, like skin color but also muscle mass, hair texture, etc, that had evolutionary advantages for their shared circumstances. It seems like wishful thinking to assume that all of these traits could be fine-tuned within a sun population but brain function would remain exactly the same in all mankind. But I’m wishing it anyway. Goodness knows the subpopulations have been mixing and matching quite a bit over the past few hundred years, and any genetic differences are starting to blur to the point that I agree with Scott and Ebo- differences within populations likely outweigh most between them.
Regardless I do very much believe that even the idea of IQ is rooted in a European cultural view and there’s no way to debias it. I certainly, fervently disagree with Murray in his conclusion to not just throw up his hands and say “the differences are genetic, there’s nothing left to be done!” but also say “it’s important to disseminate this idea so that wokeism will stop destroying America.” He is so, so wrong, and I appreciated Coleman Hughes interview that challenged him on this directly.
Smart people tend to prefer the company of other smart people and some cultures revere intelligence a lot more than others. When smart people have children with other smart people those children will be smarter still. Over centuries this leads to cultures where average intelligence is higher than global averages. Ashkenazi Jews have made a strongly disproportionate contribution to the intellectual arts and sho' 'nuff, intelligence and achievement are revered in that culture.
It is irrelevant whether every Black person has 170 IQ, except one who has a 95 IQ. Don't ask Mr. 95 to design the space shuttle b/c his group has a high IQ. Individuals matter; so screw all this racist cacadoodoo about which race is on average this or that. People are individuals so treat each individual as an individual.
When I read "The Bell Curve" it seemed to have been well thought out and to proper statistical standards, but I have questions and observations about intelligence tests. I have taken them and done well enough, but I've observed that some areas of the test would be helped by education (including the type of education) and the types of experience you have.
My wife, as a child the barefoot little girl on a water buffalo in a rice paddy from old postcard pictures has minimal education and I have no doubt that she would score much lower than me on these tests. Having lived with her for fifty-two years I have no doubt that she is far more intelligent than the test would indicate. We have different aptitudes which supply different outlooks for problem solving. Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter), the cultural zeitgeist that we lived in during our formative years, the things we focused on growing up, education (in what?) and cultural bias in what is being measured.
Does my above average capability in abstract reasoning, spatial relations and mechanical problem-solving ability make me more intelligent than someone with less ability in those areas but better capability in other areas? I don't think so, though that may make me more suited for some tasks or careers. And of course, I've done my share of stupid things for someone assumed to be smart enough to have not done them. The average of the various things being measured, weighted against each other in ways unknown to me might be very biased for obtaining a resultant score, and also tell you less than you think about intelligence (for doing what?).
The other issue is the one relating to the subject title of this, "Correlation to Causation" and if there is a cause-and-effect relationship, do we know which is the cause?
DNA. One of my daughters became interested in DNA. Hers says that the is genetically Eurasian, a 50/50 mix of her parents DNA. Looking at her, she got her mother's melanin but not much of the epicanthic fold of her eyes. Her children got grandma's eyes, but not the melanin. That is all appearance which doesn't tell you much. There is a very interesting thing relating to "race." My daughter and granddaughter are good at math, but here's the thing. My granddaughter mentioned the idea that her math ability has to do with her being "oriental". She was not aware that she is not the flavor of oriental that the stereotype is about (East Asians). She believed that she was genetically destined to be good at math, leaving me to wonder if the positive expectation gave her a boost?
That leads to a question, does racial stereotypical expectation have a causal relationship to IQ? Just my opinion without proof, I think it does, which makes racist assumptions especially poisonous. This is the important issue that all that I wrote leads to. Can "racial" expectations harm (in achievement) those that negative ones are aimed at beyond having their feelings hurt? Not only do I suspect that, I think that the people for push those views not only think so, but they do it with bad intentions to hold a group down.
If there is an intelligence differential between "races" that is important (Is there? Is it?), it is essential that we shine a light on racist expectation and put an end to it.
Measurement of intelligence is a difficult matter. Ignore cultural biases and you will get wildly differing results from people of comparable intelligence. Work too hard to eliminate bias and you will get an IQ of 100 for everyone.
The single metric is just wrong. There need to be at least six distinct metrics. I can't remember them all and Google is hopeless, returning results on intelligence in the espionage sense. A few:
* mathematical ability
* spatial visualization
* language acquisition
* athletic ability
I score high on some, dismally on others.
One big problem is the extent to which intelligence skills have been exercised. I can do arithmetic in my head very well and any time I was stuck at a stoplight I would factor the six-digit number on the license plate in front of me into its prime factors so I got a lot of practice. OTOH I don't have a lot of athletic skill and in high school it took me the entire basketball season to be able to reliably shoot a basket and then the season was over.
3D is an interesting one because it's purely intelligence; we have been out of trees too long for thinking in 3D to be hard-wired. Parrots would score 500 on a 3D test, cats would score 500 on athletic IQ.
It's been a long time since I took an actual intelligence test but I remember being told I am not a genius but a lot closer to genius than to average. So what. Tensors mystify me though they are just one layer of abstraction atop math I know pretty well.
There is no evidence that black people are dumber than white people, but African cultures tend to include a lot more discursive (storytelling) tradition than logical and this inhibits the intellectual skills that lead to high scores on IQ tests. A lot of tests are based on recognition of patterns; a series of numbers, what is the next in the series? Not everyone thinks about numbers.
"The Bell Curve" was a deeply biased book; SJ Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is a much better text. Murray set out to show that black people are dumb and his predetermined conclusion drove his analysis.
So let me clear my throat and say I deeply, deeply neither wish nor suspect that Murray is remotely right. My suspicion is that the genetic roots of what we call “intelligence” are multi-layered and ultimately overpowered by cultural factors anyway.
That said, the crude categories of “race” (erroneous as they are) are not just arbitrarily based on skin color. A Cherokee, a Filipino, an Ethiopian, and an Afghani person could all have the exact same shade of skin and hair but we consider them 4 different “races.” To the extent that “race” has any meaning whatsoever, it is on the basis of how far back a group of people share a common genetic ancestor. Members of subpopulations that reproduced in isolation from other groups developed common genetic traits, like skin color but also muscle mass, hair texture, etc, that had evolutionary advantages for their shared circumstances. It seems like wishful thinking to assume that all of these traits could be fine-tuned within a sun population but brain function would remain exactly the same in all mankind. But I’m wishing it anyway. Goodness knows the subpopulations have been mixing and matching quite a bit over the past few hundred years, and any genetic differences are starting to blur to the point that I agree with Scott and Ebo- differences within populations likely outweigh most between them.
Regardless I do very much believe that even the idea of IQ is rooted in a European cultural view and there’s no way to debias it. I certainly, fervently disagree with Murray in his conclusion to not just throw up his hands and say “the differences are genetic, there’s nothing left to be done!” but also say “it’s important to disseminate this idea so that wokeism will stop destroying America.” He is so, so wrong, and I appreciated Coleman Hughes interview that challenged him on this directly.
Smart people tend to prefer the company of other smart people and some cultures revere intelligence a lot more than others. When smart people have children with other smart people those children will be smarter still. Over centuries this leads to cultures where average intelligence is higher than global averages. Ashkenazi Jews have made a strongly disproportionate contribution to the intellectual arts and sho' 'nuff, intelligence and achievement are revered in that culture.
It is irrelevant whether every Black person has 170 IQ, except one who has a 95 IQ. Don't ask Mr. 95 to design the space shuttle b/c his group has a high IQ. Individuals matter; so screw all this racist cacadoodoo about which race is on average this or that. People are individuals so treat each individual as an individual.
When I read "The Bell Curve" it seemed to have been well thought out and to proper statistical standards, but I have questions and observations about intelligence tests. I have taken them and done well enough, but I've observed that some areas of the test would be helped by education (including the type of education) and the types of experience you have.
My wife, as a child the barefoot little girl on a water buffalo in a rice paddy from old postcard pictures has minimal education and I have no doubt that she would score much lower than me on these tests. Having lived with her for fifty-two years I have no doubt that she is far more intelligent than the test would indicate. We have different aptitudes which supply different outlooks for problem solving. Depending upon the task, sometimes it would be best to listen to her, or let her perform the task. Important factors: genetically inherited tendencies (yes, I'm saying genetics matter), the cultural zeitgeist that we lived in during our formative years, the things we focused on growing up, education (in what?) and cultural bias in what is being measured.
Does my above average capability in abstract reasoning, spatial relations and mechanical problem-solving ability make me more intelligent than someone with less ability in those areas but better capability in other areas? I don't think so, though that may make me more suited for some tasks or careers. And of course, I've done my share of stupid things for someone assumed to be smart enough to have not done them. The average of the various things being measured, weighted against each other in ways unknown to me might be very biased for obtaining a resultant score, and also tell you less than you think about intelligence (for doing what?).
The other issue is the one relating to the subject title of this, "Correlation to Causation" and if there is a cause-and-effect relationship, do we know which is the cause?
DNA. One of my daughters became interested in DNA. Hers says that the is genetically Eurasian, a 50/50 mix of her parents DNA. Looking at her, she got her mother's melanin but not much of the epicanthic fold of her eyes. Her children got grandma's eyes, but not the melanin. That is all appearance which doesn't tell you much. There is a very interesting thing relating to "race." My daughter and granddaughter are good at math, but here's the thing. My granddaughter mentioned the idea that her math ability has to do with her being "oriental". She was not aware that she is not the flavor of oriental that the stereotype is about (East Asians). She believed that she was genetically destined to be good at math, leaving me to wonder if the positive expectation gave her a boost?
That leads to a question, does racial stereotypical expectation have a causal relationship to IQ? Just my opinion without proof, I think it does, which makes racist assumptions especially poisonous. This is the important issue that all that I wrote leads to. Can "racial" expectations harm (in achievement) those that negative ones are aimed at beyond having their feelings hurt? Not only do I suspect that, I think that the people for push those views not only think so, but they do it with bad intentions to hold a group down.
If there is an intelligence differential between "races" that is important (Is there? Is it?), it is essential that we shine a light on racist expectation and put an end to it.