Except it’s not purely speculative. Group differences have been noted since testing began and no one has figured out a way of eliminating them. For instance, is there any evidence that group differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other european groups have converged?
The problem with the Flynn effect is that it appears to be qualitatively different to the B-W gap (Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255).
Also, gaps have reduced from 1.5 stdv during the first half of the 20th century, but the narrowing has stagnated. As Lee notes:
’ Review of intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count’ James Lee, Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255
Also, a recent meta analysis of the stereotype threat explanation has show widespread publication bias.
Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans, by Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan University of Amsterdam
I’m afraid you didn’t understand my statement. Your “baseless strawman” that I was talking about is your repeated and unsubstantiated claim that those of us who disagree with you are arguing that innate racial differences “CANNOT POSSIBLY” exist.
Everybody in this debate, AFAICT, is perfectly willing to concur that innate racial differences MAY POSSIBLY exist. But the fact is that so far, such differences have not been reliably SHOWN to exist.
Nope. You’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who needs to substantiate it: it’s not up to me to show that it’s not true. You don’t get to evade the responsibility of properly substantiating the claim with conclusive evidence by appealing to a lot of inconclusive evidence (such as studies controlling for only a few environmental factors when looking at SAT scores, for example).
No amount of inconclusive evidence will add up to conclusive evidence. So far, all the evidence you’ve produced about measured racial differences in outcomes could be explained either by innate genetic factors or by environmental factors, or by some combination thereof.
Piling up more and more such evidence doesn’t advance your position in the slightest: rather, it leaves us right where we started, with the recognition that measured racial differences might be due to genetic differences or to environmental differences or to both, but we don’t know which.
Sorry to offend you with comparisons to blatant kookery like creationism and moon-landing-hoax theories, but the fact is that you are adopting precisely their characteristic style of argument:
You start out with a hypothesis that seems to you intuitively reasonable and manifestly true.
You interpret all evidence that doesn’t actually contradict your hypothesis as evidence that definitively supports your hypothesis.
You interpret all sustained objections to your arguments as indications of bad faith and/or ideological prejudice on the part of those who disagree with you.
When others point out that you haven’t convincingly shown that your claims are true, you retort that it’s their responsibility to show that your claims are not true.
Finally, you retreat into your original subjective confidence in the intuitive reasonableness and manifest truth of your hypothesis, and comfort yourself with prophecies that the day will come when The Truth Will Be Revealed and you will be able to gleefully rejoice in the discomfiture of your adversaries.
This may be a satisfying emotional exercise for you, but it does not qualify as a rational debate.
Except it’s not speculative. Group differences have been noted since testing began and no one has figured out a way of eliminating them. For instance, is there any evidence that group differences between Ashkenazi Jews and other european groups have converged?
The problem with the Flynn effect is that it appears to be qualitatively different to the B-W gap.
Also, gaps have reduced from 1.5 stdv during the first half of the 20th century, but the narrowing has stagnated. As Lee notes:
’ Review of intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and
cultures count’ James Lee, Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255
Also, a recent meta analysis of the stereotype threat explanation has show widespread publication bias.
Stereotype threat and the cognitive test performance of African Americans, by Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan University of Amsterdam
I don’t think Chief Pedant can realistically argue that 70 percent of white American teenage boys expect to play in the NBA.
This article provides some useful historical background on the cultural and social factors influencing basketball participation, and illustrates how absurd it is to claim that these influences are in any way “normalized” across racial categories in American society.
In these discussions, several of us have pointed out to Chief Pedant several times that Jews used to be heavily overrepresented among white American basketball players, whereas now they’re significantly underrepresented in basketball even when only white players are considered. We’ve asked him to explain to us what happened to the “innate Jewish superiority” in basketball skills relative to other whites, and AFAIK he’s never managed to do so.
Well, in some broad sense, “Yes,” although “every” is an exaggeration, which I assume you threw in for rhetorical effect.
In a subculture in which NASCAR is hugely popular, it is likely that a child with talent and propensity for that pursuit will be specifically encouraged by his social structure and family, and should he (“she” if her name is Danica ) be successful in that pursuit, it’s unlikely that substitute pursuits would be encouraged as alternatives. Those alternatives would be encouraged only when the primary pursuit does not prove a successful venue–i.e. the individual isn’t able to perform at a top-tier level.
This is why it’s important to understand that, in the case of basketball, although it may be true that a larger percentage of blacks pursue it (though not, I’d guess, a larger absolute number because of the population size differences) even if they are not a top-tier player, at the highest level of performance, white basketball stars aren’t giving up basketball until and unless they are unsuccessful at it. The interest in the sport on the part of a wide white fan base ensures that every young white boy showing real talent is given the greatest opportunity (and certainly, on average, a greater average opportunity than a black kid) to develop his maximum potential, giving up basketball only when it’s clear that potential is not good enough. In the black community it’s may be more likely that a whole second-tier of athletes continues to play basketball instead of switching to lacrosse, but that does not change the reasoning behind suggesting that there is disproportionate representation: The pool of white athletes with a desire to pursue basketball as a primary pursuit is much larger than that of black athletes, and their opportunity to have any innate potential maximized is much larger–precisely because the broad interest in basketball exists in the white community and the resources to effect potential maximization also exist to a greater extent than in the black community.
by CP:
I call bullshit on Stereotype threat as an explanation for observed differences in performance.
You were kind enough not to request a cite, but as an example:
“The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American-White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students’ prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson’s findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American-White differences in test performance.” http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/59/1/7/
I might encourage reading the full text of the cite.
Seriously, can you articulate what kind of research study and what level of normalizations would be acceptable that does not require observable parallel universes where we get to play God iterating through trillions of combinatorial outcomes?
If one normalizes for 10 factors, then you can always criticize that he didn’t account for an additional 5. If he normalizes for 100 factors, then you can criticize that they are 100 of the “wrong” factors (the “color of the pet dish” as you put it.)
Looks like a no-win situation. No matter how massive the study or how many socioeconomic/environmental factors are controlled, there’s always a gap left for criticism because it’s not a complete parallel universe.
Just in terms of other psychological differences there is a summary of the various research here. Again, African Americans are noted to have higher self esteem than euro americans.
Other interesting studies include those showing differences in the behaviour of Chinese new borns and european new borns by Dan Freedman, and later by Jerome Kagan (page 48-49).
Rushton, J. P. (1999). Ethnic differences in temperament. In Y.-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 45-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
I have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever characterized the opposing arguments you post here as taking the position that innate differences “cannot possibly” exist, despite your implied attribution of that to me by using quotes. I have taken the position that there is no evidence for that, and that there is evidence that nature is what accounts for many of our differing outcomes despite all efforts to eliminate them. I have not argued that nurturing differences do not play a role in outcomes; only that innate differences create an immutable maximum potential realization across groups.
I have given evidence that differences exist, that many studies exist which are contrary to the claim that income level, parental education, stereotype threat and equalizing opportunity are explanations for those differences. I have pointed out repeatedly that no examples in the entire world exist which support a contention that various racial groups are innately equal. In particular, the world of higher academia in this country has been completely stymied in its effort to produce anything close to equal outcomes in quantitative fields for particular groups.
You, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that the differing performance levels of racial groups can be eliminated by nurture. Not one.
Yet you persist in claiming, arbitrarily, that additional proof is necessary for my arguments to rise above the level of “kookery.” Your choice, and as I mentioned, a popular and feel good one. I am not interested in fighting that, but the pretense that my position should be distilled into the statements you make above, and that my arguments are on par with creationists speaks of desperation and rhetorical distraction in the hope that readers will overlook the complete absence of evidence for your position that there is no reasonable level of evidence suggesting nature over nurture.
It is you who have not offered a single iota of evidence that what you wish might be a good alternatively acceptable explanation–nurturing–is correct. And as I have also pointed out, you are left without such evidence despite billions of dollars, thousands of programs and millions of good intentions having been spent on pursuing the hypothesis that any and every explanation except innate potential might explain the differing outcomes we see among groups (including, but not limited to, the vague category of “race”).
Well, Jensen was asked by Harvard Educational Review to look at the effectiveness of Head Start. Today you get similar questions because educational policy is to close achievement gaps. Of course if the genetic influences on academic achievement are differentially distributed across these groups, then this policy is not grounded in reality. It would be better to focus on lifting the achievement of all students so they reach their individual potential.
Sure you have, right in this very thread, repeatedly, even after the inaccuracy of such characterizations has been explicitly pointed out to you:
I’m glad that you’ve apparently given up on that strawman now, but it’s no use pretending that you weren’t using that strawman previously.
Of course I haven’t, because I’m not arguing for that hypothesis.
Being a reasonable person with respect for scientific method and rational argument, I don’t claim to know whether performance differences between racial groups are due to innate genetic factors or to environmental factors or to varying combinations of the two. At present, neither hypothesis has been conclusively demonstrated by scientific studies, and I think both hypotheses would be intrinsically very difficult to demonstrate conclusively.
All I’m doing is pointing out that your claims about the level of scientific support for the hypothesis you’re advocating are wildly exaggerated, and that many of your arguments (like the ones about normalization of environmental factors for basketball participation across racial groups) are subjective, arbitrary, and ill-informed.
Just because I observe that your attempts to support your preferred hypothesis are pretty much total crap doesn’t mean that I think that your hypothesis itself must therefore be wrong. Nor does the crappiness of your arguments in favor of your preferred hypothesis constitute a valid argument in favor of the opposing hypothesis.
In short, as I said, on the subject of race and intelligence we’re currently left pretty much where we started: with the recognition that measured racial differences might be due to genetic differences or to environmental differences or to both, but we don’t know which.
Well, if you want to study an incredibly complex bio-socio-cultural phenomenon that has zillions of confounding factors in it, then you need to recognize that it’s going to be very difficult to construct an adequately controlled experiment, and that people are going to criticize your attempts to draw reliable inferences from inadequately controlled experiments.
I sympathize with your frustration at the fact that this particular emperor is very tough to make clothes for, but that doesn’t mean you get to blame me for pointing out that the emperor still hasn’t been successfully clothed.
But that’s part of the problem. We (society) don’t just shoot the breeze about this topic theoretically. We spend real money on various social programs that don’t work. The temporary experiments to equalize society morph into special-interest factions.
So on one hand, the level of empirical proof has not been established to prove genetics – but at the same time, we don’t require the same level of proof of socioeconomics to continue funding social programs. It’s like having one’s cake and eating it too!
Yup, which is why I would argue that we should not fund social programs specifically to achieve a particular comparative outcome.
That is, if black students, say, on average have lower academic performance and consequently inferior career opportunities compared to students of other races, it makes sense to treat that as a warning flag for possible environmental disadvantages, and to study the situation for the presence of environmental disadvantages. Then if we find evidence of environmental disadvantages, it makes sense to fund some programs to ameliorate them, and watch the results to see if average performance improves.
What doesn’t make sense is to adopt as our a priori goal the achievement of a situation in which all performance levels are equal across racial categories. Because if we don’t even know whether that situation is theoretically achievable, then we have no way of knowing how much we should commit to achieving it.
And to be fair, I think that most “uplift” efforts in social programs these days have pretty much relinquished idealized targets of absolute equality in favor of concentrating on amelioration of specific disadvantages. I certainly think that’s a more productive approach.
Thank you for that. It was an interesting read. Is this the part you wanted me to notice?
Looks to me that the whole point of this is not to show that stereotype threat does not exist, but that we should not think stereotype threat is the only reason for differences. I think that is a pretty reasonable position and I agree. I guess I am not sure why you think this supports your argument that stereotype threat does not exist.
Nope, this is inconsistent. You’re not using your own standards of proof to justify the social program funding. You haven’t accounted for the “zillion” genetic factors. There is “no evidence” of environmental disadvantages until genetics is fully explained away. See how the reverse logic can also be applied?
Well sure, justifying the funding of social programs doesn’t use the same proof standards as conclusively demonstrating a scientific theory. I thought that was the very point I was making.
That’s why I don’t think we should specify an empirically untestable assertion (like “funding education enrichment programs will equalize SAT scores across racial groups”) as the goal of a program; rather, we should specify something empirically testable like “funding this education enrichment program will improve SAT scores of underperforming groups”. That way, we don’t have to know with scientific certainty exactly what factors contribute exactly how much to performance differentials.
It’s very true that if we require scientific levels of theoretical certainty to justify spending, we’ll never be justified in spending anything at all. We couldn’t spend for new nuclear weapons development, for example, because we couldn’t conclusively prove how much they’ll increase the deterrent effect on possible attackers.
That study is unpublished and not peer reviewed (what is the point of that link?). Furthermore, it is a survey of the media and is not experimental. Do you have any studies that actually test stereotype threat and find it to be invalid? I ran a PsychINFO search and found a whole bunch confirming it. I admit they can be wrong, but it is up to you to show it.
I think the phrase, “don’t have to know… exactly what factors contribute” is being coy. We all know the factors the programs are trying to compensate for is “nurture” and not “nature.”
That’s not what my emphasis on reverse logic is saying. I’m saying that the social program funding starts with a priori assumption of socioeconomic disadvantage as the primary cause. They don’t write the legislation with wording saying it’s a temporary experiment (e.g. limited to 25 years) with genuine scientific open-mindedness of accepting the possible outcomes – GOOD or BAD. No, if the outcomes are bad, then it means the not enough money was spent, or that the program was poorly executed. That entire a priori mindset is insistently maintained throughout. This is a much lower standard of proof than the “nature” proponents are subjected to.
Why does it have to start with the assumption that it’s the primary cause to the exclusion of all else? Everyone including Murray and Hernstein, Rushton, et al agrees that socioeconomic disadvantage is a very significant factor in the testing disparity. Since it’s a very significant factor and the sort of factor that lends itself to easily-designed social programs, it’s not hard to see why such programs would be funded.
No; as Gorsnak pointed out, the issue of how to identify the primary cause of outcome differences across racial groups is irrelevant. To justify social program funding to help underperforming groups, all we need is good reason to think that some environmental factor addressed by the program (whether it’s socioeconomic disadvantage or something else) is a significant contributing cause.
I quite agree with you that if a certain social program has produced no detectable improvement after a long time, we shouldn’t go on funding it just out of blindly stubborn conviction that it’s bound to work eventually. But that’s very different from saying that we require scientific certainty about the impact of a particular program before we’ll even try funding it.
Well, sure, because at present nurture factors are the only influences that can be addressed by any post-conception intervention program. Just because we can’t alter genetic factors after an individual has been conceived doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to compensate for other kinds of factors.
) be successful in that pursuit, it’s unlikely that substitute pursuits would be encouraged as alternatives. Those alternatives would be encouraged only when the primary pursuit does not prove a successful venue–i.e. the individual isn’t able to perform at a top-tier level.