# Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 23, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052 "2017-04-23T09:21:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 78
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1541 "2018-05-12T22:42:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > All that stuff I wrote upthread? I retract it. My understanding of [R2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination) and the correlation coefficient was mucked, and in a way that qualitatively mattered. I would need to trace through then recast my analysis entirely. Haven’t done that yet. Any aspersions directed at Sam Harris or anyone else are retracted as well. Clean slate. By request, I’m revisiting the Wiki article. I doubt whether I have much to say that **Kimstu** hasn’t already covered though. Also, I’m just a jerk looking at wiki page: others on this board have a stronger science background in biology and genetics. [Heritability of IQ - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) Take the correlation coefficients of identical twins reared apart: that would be an upper bound on the extent that genetics affect intelligence. It’s an upper bound because it’s unlikely that social environments would have been assigned at random: adoption agencies like to assign kids to the best homes they can. Furthermore (and less mentioned in popular discussions) the _prenatal_ environment of the twins are highly correlated, to put it mildly. So yeah, upper bound for the purely genetic effect on intelligence. Twins reared apart have a Pearson correlation coefficient of .76. That’s not too far from .80, Harris’ reported upper bound. But that figure is misleading as a guide to the effect of race on IQ. Because genetics aren’t the same as hereditability. To see this, the correlation coefficient between fraternal twins, reared apart. They still share a lot of genetic information - a lot more than 2 people of the same race. And once again, we’re working with an upper bound - post-natal environment will be correlated and prenatal environments will be highly correlated. So what’s this figure? It’s .35. That’s pretty far from a .50-.80 range. Now look at biological siblings, reared apart. They will also share a lot more genetic material than 2 people of the same race. The correlation coefficient for them is … .24. And again, it’s an upper bound. For cousins it’s .15. Those are pretty low figures - frankly they are lower than I would expect. Let’s review what high and low correlation coefficients are: [What Is R Value Correlation? | dummies](http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/) [indent][indent] 0. No linear relationship +0.30. A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship +0.50. A moderate uphill (positive) relationship +0.70. A strong uphill (positive) linear relationship Exactly +1. A perfect uphill (positive) linear relationship [/indent][/indent] …which is to say that .24 and .15 are, to use the technical term, weak. Seriously, that’s the term. ## After all is said and done, would it shock me that there was some residual relationship between race (whatever the hell that is) and intelligence (whatever the hell that is)? Brave truth teller MfM says, “No, because why not?” There are lots of subtle and hard to tease out effects in the world. But I’d expect the effect to be small and frankly insignificant in any sort of policy or personal sense. I would also guess that hunter-gatherer groupings would score better than descendants of farmers, because there’s a bigger niche for raw muscle specialists in the latter group. Then again, descendants of urbanites would have awesome disease resistance (and allergies in a modern context). PS: I’ve dodged an important discussion of R[sup]2[/sup], the correlation coefficient, and other possible metrics for explained variation. Not really the proper forum here. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1542 "2018-05-13T03:31:15Z")
Not that facts mean anything, but here is a pop-sci article that may make it easier for some people to understand how being poor, or in a minority group that increases stress levels can impact IQ scores. > **[Analysis: How poverty can drive down intelligence](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-how-poverty-can-drive-down-intelligence)** > > Poverty lowers your IQ — in one study, by something like 13 points. Of course data won’t convince those that believe some mythical group that they can’t even define is superior. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1543 "2018-05-13T21:12:46Z")
In terms of pedagogy, there’s some evidence that the black vernacular tends to repress reading scores, partly because of its greater use of homophones. Basically white kids have an edge in sounding out words over black kids who use Ebonics in the home. To see how this plays out in practice, consider this encounter between a linguist and a black four year old: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Studying African-American Vernacular English wasn’t Julie Washington’s plan. But one day in the fall of 1990, her speech-pathology doctorate fresh in hand, she found herself sitting with a little girl at a school outside Detroit. The two were reading the classic P. D. Eastman picture book _Are You My Mother?_, which tells the tale of a lost hatchling trying to find its way home. The girl—4 years old, homeless, and a heavy speaker of the dialect known as African-American English, or AAE—listened attentively as Washington read: [INDENT][INDENT] “Are you my mother?” the baby bird asked the cow. ``` “How could I be your mother?” said the cow. “I am a cow.” ``` [/INDENT] Washington closed the book and asked the girl to recount the story from memory. The girl hesitated, then launched into it. “She goes, ‘Is you my mama? I ain’t none a yo’ mama!,’ ” Washington recalls. “She did the whole thing in dialect.” Washington found the girl’s retelling deft and charming, and she left the classroom smiling. Only later, sitting in her office at the University of Michigan, did Washington have the flash of insight that would redirect her career. “As a scientist, I stepped back and thought about what that girl had to do,” Washington told me recently, while waiting to address a gathering of linguists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “She had to listen to a story in a dialect she doesn’t really use herself, understand the meaning, hold the story in her memory, recode it in her own dialect, and then say it all back to me.” The girl’s “translation” of the book might not sound like much, but translating it? “That’s _hard_,” Washington said, especially for a young child. The experience convinced her that dialect was playing a significant and unrecognized role in the reading achievement of millions of children—and very likely contributing to the persistence of the black–white gap in test scores. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] [Julie Washington’s Quest to Get Schools to Respect African-American English - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-code-switcher/554099/) There ways of addressing this: Oakland tried to take baby steps by treating AAE as a dialect of standard written English, but they were laughed at by ignorant editorialists and the plan was shelved. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1544 "2018-05-13T21:29:23Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > You are amusing, GIGO, in how consistently you destroy your own arguments. You are going to stand by “incapable” and “naive” as synonyms? Why don’t you see if you can get any of your native-English-speaking buddies to cosign that one. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Urm, Slacker the original pairing was “Incompetent” and “Incapable”: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That was supposed to be “ignoring”, but it is better for you to _ **ignore** _ the rest of the post as you cowardly do as usual. 🙂 > > [IQ and race - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com](http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html) > > After all, I did spell incapable properly, so according to your debating logic then it is a point that does stand. > > You are indeed an incompetent. (A synonym of “Incapable”) > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Actually, not quite. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > [42 Synonyms & Antonyms for INCAPABLE | Thesaurus.com](http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/incapable) > Well, more evidence of your incompetency, besides not being able to google… ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1545 "2018-05-13T21:52:45Z")
Ok, now I’m going to rant a little. In Slacker’s defense, his arguments are substantially less [tendentious](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tendentious?s=t) (i.e. goal directed) than most of the alt-right clowns I’ve encountered on the internet and this message board. Which reflects the fact that Slacker isn’t part of the alt-right. Still, the big picture is that even following the worst days of Jim Crow (~1948?? IIRC), when educational facilities extended to blacks and whites varied greatly and rewards to black education were diminished, the black white test score gap maxed out at a single standard deviation. Even then, the _within group_ variation was a bigger story than the difference between the means of the 2 groups. And since then the gap has halved. If you can’t grasp those last two sentences, IM not-so HO, you’re not smart or educated enough to opine on this subject. Yes, they require some parsing. But they are central to the discussion. Furthermore, IQ wasn’t designed (by [Binet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet)) to measure anything intrinsic anyway. It was meant as a way to catch kids that were doing poorly in school, so they could get extra help over the summer. While I’m guessing it is measuring _something_, I’m not convinced that it’s better than any other standardized test. Which is to say that it’s relationship with eg lifetime earnings or any other direct outcome is a loose one. Most alt-right clowns don’t like to dive into these complexities. In fact, the concept of standard deviation either eludes them entirely or at the very least fills them with indifference, disinterest. Despite the fact that it’s core to their position. Bloody annoying shitheads don’t have a clue how messy the underlying science is, and don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1546 "2018-05-14T20:44:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Take the correlation coefficients of identical twins reared apart: that would be an upper bound on the extent that genetics affect intelligence. It’s an upper bound because it’s unlikely that social environments would have been assigned at random: adoption agencies like to assign kids to the best homes they can. Furthermore (and less mentioned in popular discussions) the _prenatal_ environment of the twins are highly correlated, to put it mildly. So yeah, upper bound for the purely genetic effect on intelligence. > > Twins reared apart have a Pearson correlation coefficient of .76. That’s not too far from .80, Harris’ reported upper bound. > > But that figure is misleading as a guide to the effect of race on IQ. Because genetics aren’t the same as hereditability. To see this, the correlation coefficient between fraternal twins, reared apart. They still share a lot of genetic information - a lot more than 2 people of the same race. And once again, we’re working with an upper bound - post-natal environment will be correlated and prenatal environments will be highly correlated. So what’s this figure? > > It’s .35. That’s pretty far from a .50-.80 range. This is fascinating stuff, and I absolutely understand why one could use this to make a strong argument against there being a significant racial-genetic component to IQ (although one thing I wish were included in your figures as a kind of control is what the correlation coefficient is between two randomly chosen adopted kids, who are not only “reared apart” but would have similar environments in terms of being chosen by adoption agencies, yet not even be cousins in terms of biological relatedness). We would expect it to be more than zero, given the similar environments, right? But there’s something that jumps out at me that I just can’t wrap my mind around, and I wonder if you know what to make of it or have any hypotheses. (Let me note in advance that I’m not lawyering for a genetic race-IQ argument here, just purely following the data and trying to understand it.) And that’s the sharp dropoff between the identical twins and the fraternal twins. You note that the home environment of adopted kids is not random, due to placement by adoption agencies. And also that of course prenatal environment is shared by fraternal twins, just as it is by identical twins. So what else can that huge .41 dropoff represent, except for the genetic difference between identical and fraternal twins? Doesn’t that mean getting just the right combination of genes is the dominant factor in IQ, leaving race aside? And yet apparently even “identical” twins don’t share the exact same genomes: > **[Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/)** > > Twins may appear to be cut from the same cloth, but their genes reveal a different pattern > [@](#): > > For example, one twin in Bruder’s study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.[…] > > The result might also call into question the many findings of previous twin studies that assumed identical twins were indeed identical, Bruder notes. “It’s pretty unlikely they’re going to significantly change any of the results found so far,” counters Kerry Jang, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who runs Canada’s largest twin study. “We can adjust our models to take [genetic differences] into account in the same way we’ve adjusted for different environments.”[…] > > “Maybe we shouldn’t call them identical twins,” Harvard’s Bieber says. “We should call them ‘one-egg twins.’” Which means .76 is not necessarily the upper bound after all–just ask that poor twin who has leukemia. So that huge .41 dropoff not only has to be all about genetics (unless I’m missing something), the actual dropoff–if identical twins were truly identical genetically–might even be higher! Isn’t this almost a paradox? While the weak correlation you get by the time you are at the sibling, and especially the cousin, level seems to make the genetic hypothesis at the race level dubious, we do in fact have a large disparity in IQ scores between races, even at young ages and even when comparing poor black kids with poor white kids or rich black kids with rich white kids. So given that there’s this huge chunk of correlation gobbled up just by the genetic difference between fraternal and “identical” (one-egg) twins, is there room enough left for “nurture” to explain those racial disparities? Something doesn’t add up here. Or if it does, please show me how! > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Urm, Slacker the original pairing was “Incompetent” and “Incapable”: Yes, and I don’t agree that those are quite synonymous, which is why I said “not quite”. GIGO responded with a cite that also called “naive” a synonym of “incapable”, which to me demonstrated how loose that source was being in its definition of “synonym”. Meaning that it didn’t really help GIGO’s case—and I feel like I’ve seen him/her undermine his/her own arguments before, in the midst of ranting and raving at me (which you might notice I don’t do in response). That’s all, not a huge deal. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > There ways of addressing this: Oakland tried to take baby steps by treating AAE as a dialect of standard written English, but they were laughed at by ignorant editorialists and the plan was shelved. Yeah, I remember that, and I agree that it’s a shame. I think they made a mistake calling it “ebonics” instead of AAVE (I’ve always seen it with the V, but I see you eschew that). It’s a good point, that if we treat black kids as semi-ESL speakers, that might really change the results of a lot of aptitude tests. It still doesn’t account for smaller cranial size or for the poorer performance of black kids adopted by white families, though. In any case, my periodic disclaimer: if we stop as a society throwing educators and teacher unions under the bus for lower test performance by black students compared to whites and Asians, I’d be delighted to drop this whole distasteful subject and frown at anyone who seems to relish digging into it. I don’t want to shame anyone unnecessarily, which I think is the biggest difference between me and the alt-right (and I appreciate your acknowledging that I’m not in that category). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1547 "2018-05-14T22:06:25Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > This is fascinating stuff, and I absolutely understand why one could use this to make a strong argument against there being a significant racial-genetic component to IQ To be honest, my main takeaway was that these relationships are too complicated to address with simplistic thinking or simplistic statistics. Never mind tendentious bigotry, which I trust you’ve observed on this message board as well. > [@](#): > > (although one thing I wish were included in your figures as a kind of control is what the correlation coefficient is between two randomly chosen adopted kids, who are not only “reared apart” but would have similar environments in terms of being chosen by adoption agencies, yet not even be cousins in terms of biological relatedness). We would expect it to be more than zero, given the similar environments, right? Yes, more data is better. Also, generally speaking a paper that just used correlation coefficients wouldn’t be publishable. You want to know what the correlations are _after_ controlling for this or that. In other words you want to multi-variable approach. [Ordinary least squares - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_least_squares) (Yup: “Ordinary”) > [@](#): > > But there’s something that jumps out at me that I just can’t wrap my mind around, and I wonder if you know what to make of it or have any hypotheses. (Let me note in advance that I’m not lawyering for a genetic race-IQ argument here, just purely following the data and trying to understand it.) And that’s the sharp dropoff between the identical twins and the fraternal twins. You note that the home environment of adopted kids is not random, due to placement by adoption agencies. And also that of course prenatal environment is shared by fraternal twins, just as it is by identical twins. So what else can that huge .41 dropoff represent, except for the genetic difference between identical and fraternal twins? Doesn’t that mean getting just the right combination of genes is the dominant factor in IQ, leaving race aside? It isn’t unusual for tables of cross-correlations to have stuff that jumps out. When I see a dataset like that (i.e. when I see basically any dataset) I typically stop screwing around with the correlation coefficients, and work on some sort of multi-variable model. If you have the raw data, this is easier than it may sound - Excel has had an Ordinary Least Squares plugin since at least the early 1990s. > [@](#): > > And yet apparently even “identical” twins don’t share the exact same genomes: Didn’t know that. That _does_ change my upper bound argument. > [@](#): > > Something doesn’t add up here. Or if it does, please show me how! I find this to be common when you dig into data. While it sometimes is roughly consistent with my pre-conceptions, there are almost always twists of one sort or another. Then again, I’ve once heard data investigation as a process of learning more and more about less and less. > [@](#): > > It’s a good point, that if we treat black kids as semi-ESL speakers, that might really change the results of a lot of aptitude tests. It still doesn’t account for smaller cranial size or for the poorer performance of black kids adopted by white families, though. Holy shit, cranial size? That’s 1800s stuff. You know what cranial size is correlated with? Strongly? Body size. No established relationship with intelligence at least c. 1981. Cite, this book: [The Mismeasure of Man - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) (Yes, I see that the wiki article contains some back and forth regarding the effects of unconscious bias on measurement of cranial size. Doesn’t affect my claim. ) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1548 "2018-05-14T22:28:39Z")
According to this Stanford neuroscientist, brain size does matter, even if it’s not everything (why this would even need to be stated, I can’t imagine): [Ask a Neuroscientist: Does a bigger brain make you smarter? | Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute](https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1549 "2018-05-15T14:40:47Z")
> [@Sneering progressives are driving young white men into the arms of the GOP](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sneering-progressives-are-driving-young-white-men-into-the-arms-of-the-gop/813566/947): > > See post 250: [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20945277&postcount=250](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20945277&postcount=250) > > The problem with bringing things in from other threads (other boards, even) is that people who weren’t in those threads only get your selected spin on what was said. You somehow neglected to mention that I have consistently supported reparations for slavery and dramatically increasing funding for educating black kids, funding social programs that benefit African Americans, etc. Or that Obama is my favorite president, closely followed by LBJ and Grant, specifically because of their strong records of supporting civil rights for blacks. > > So now someone who wasn’t in that thread might be confused and wondering how to square all this, because they weren’t there for a long and very nuanced discussion that you have cherrypicked for your ad hominem attack in an unrelated thread. And pretty soon we’re relitigating a whole different thread here. That’s why you don’t do that. > > That, and the fact that what I’m saying here is either right or not on its own merits. That’s fundamental to why ad hominem is a fallacy. Putting this here because it’s kind of personal. But I think this, once again, belies your earlier claim that you don’t care about credit. You want credit, or reassurance, that no, you aren’t so bad, because you liked Obama and reparations and stuff like that. But that’s not how it works. Racism and bigotry in society and culture are incredibly insidious forces that affect all of us in various ways, and until you (and folks like Sam Harris) consider and don’t outright reject the possibility that your beliefs, especially in things like inherent genetic intellectual inferiority and superiority, could be influenced by these insidious and powerful societal forces, you won’t get any credit or reassurance that you’re on the right side of this issue, at least not from me. I’m glad you’re not a hateful person, but making progress requires a lot more than an absence of hatred. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1550 "2018-05-15T15:51:24Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > According to this Stanford neuroscientist, brain size does matter, even if it’s not everything (why this would even need to be stated, I can’t imagine): [NeuWrite West -- Ask a Neuroscientist: Does a bigger brain make you smarter?](https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter) That was a meta study, that has huge caveats called out in the source data. And it is a perfect example of the logical error that you seem to keep making. I am not blaming you as confirmation bias is a challenge for all humans but remember that correlation does not equal causation. From the same era as your study. > [@](#): > > General human intelligence appears to be based on the volume of gray matter tissue in certain regions of the brain, UC Irvine College of Medicine researchers have found in the most comprehensive structural brain-scan study of intelligence to date. > **[Human Intelligence Determined By Volume And Location Of Gray Matter Tissue In...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040720090419.htm)** > > General human intelligence appears to be based on the volume of gray matter tissue in certain regions of the brain, UC Irvine College of Medicine researchers have found in the most comprehensive structural brain-scan study of intelligence to date. And more recent data has demonstrated it is far more complex. [https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2135](https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2135) This is why the scientific method uses techniques like testing the null, as to avoid this type of cherrypicking. It is also why good scientists are just about as happy when they get a result that disproves their hypothesis. This is the difference between a scientist like Brian Greene would be extremely excited if you could disprove string theory; where Deepak Chopra will just find another tortured description to justify his beliefs or dismiss what you said. You are still Begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1551 "2018-05-15T18:30:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes, and I don’t agree that those are quite synonymous, which is why I said “not quite”. GIGO responded with a cite that also called “naive” a synonym of “incapable”, which to me demonstrated how loose that source was being in its definition of “synonym”. Meaning that it didn’t really help GIGO’s case—and I feel like I’ve seen him/her undermine his/her own arguments before, in the midst of ranting and raving at me (which you might notice I don’t do in response). That’s all, not a huge deal. As \*\*iiandiii \*\*notices, you are not just reminding all about your cowardice but here you are also reminding us about your insecurities. That was just about the fourth time where you worry about the grammar of a poster rather than the information that experts provided about how wrong you are about the main issue. And worst of all: that was a very, very weak reply about the grammar issue too. So, good thing that I’m not a coward regarding the main issue because as others noted, you are cherry picking. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > While the weak correlation you get by the time you are at the sibling, and especially the cousin, level seems to make the genetic hypothesis at the race level dubious, we do in fact have a large disparity in IQ scores between races, even at young ages and even when comparing poor black kids with poor white kids or rich black kids with rich white kids. So given that there’s this huge chunk of correlation gobbled up just by the genetic difference between fraternal and “identical” (one-egg) twins, is there room enough left for “nurture” to explain those racial disparities? > > Something doesn’t add up here. Or if it does, please show me how! Leave it for the racists to miss the elephant in the room. > **[Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html)** > > A study of 20 million children shows the fragility of the American Dream. > [@](#): > > Extensive Data Shows Punishing > Reach of Racism for Black Boys > > Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children. As for cranial size and IQ differences: [http://bactra.org/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf](http://bactra.org/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf) > [@](#): > > First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high. [Marks 1995:2] > [@](#): > > Harpending expresses his well-known support for racial differences. He refers to Boas concerning a significant degree of independence of biology in the effort to build recognition for the idea of learned social behavior called culture. Biology and the social are related but not in a narrow, deterministic way; the variety of cultures and the choices made from the wide range of individual behaviors are not normally determined by genes. > > Harpending supports his argument by reference to Bouchard et al.’s (1990) study of identical twins. We are all impressed that identical twins after years of separation smoke the same brand of cigarette and lend support to high heritability, but were they really raised in different environments? Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman (1992) are also referenced, but no mention is made of the Scarr et al. (1977) study that found no relation between IQ and degree of African/European ancestry. > > Harpending says that “one does not average correlation coefficients from different studies as Lieberman seems to have done,” but this is exactly what Rushton, Brainerd, and Pressley (1983) advocate and Rushton practices in numerous papers. I agree that it should not be done, but I suggest that he tell that to Rushton. I used the procedure to show that Rushton does not meet his own standards. Harpending asserts that Rushton does not attribute “inferior” and “superior” to the traits on his list. Rushton does claim merely to state the facts, but what is the meaning of such terms as “civilization,” “cultural achievement,” and “law-abidingness” when ranked from 1 to 3? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1552 "2018-05-15T19:35:41Z")
Andy, it doesn’t “belie” anything. I said all along that I don’t like my views to be misrepresented. Lumping me in with people who bemoan the Great Society, hate Obama, snarl at minorities, or pine for the “Lost Cause” is a gross misrepresentation. GIGO, that’s interesting about the earlier claims that Asians had smaller heads. But it looks pretty obvious to me that those earlier measurements were distorted by racial bias and the modern ones, using MRIs, are accurate. What racial agenda of the 21st century would require falsely putting Asians on the top level? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1553 "2018-05-15T19:41:39Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Andy, it doesn’t “belie” anything. I said all along that I don’t like my views to be misrepresented. Lumping me in with people who bemoan the Great Society, hate Obama, snarl at minorities, or pine for the “Lost Cause” is a gross misrepresentation. They’re not being misrepresented, and you’re not being lumped in with anyone, you’re just being criticized for things that you’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1554 "2018-05-15T20:13:49Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Andy, it doesn’t “belie” anything. I said all along that I don’t like my views to be misrepresented. Lumping me in with people who bemoan the Great Society, hate Obama, snarl at minorities, or pine for the “Lost Cause” is a gross misrepresentation. > > GIGO, that’s interesting about the earlier claims that Asians had smaller heads. But it looks pretty obvious to me that those earlier measurements were distorted by racial bias and the modern ones, using MRIs, are accurate. What racial agenda of the 21st century would require falsely putting Asians on the top level? You are still missing the main point here. > [@](#): > > We argue that race differences in brain size, even if these were entirely of genetic origin, leave unexplained 91–95% of the black-white IQ gap. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909003675](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909003675) There is no prove that this correlation is causal, and in fact the grey vs white matter ratios and other internal, non-volume related features seem to be more related to IQ tests (which is not a reliable measure of intelligence BTW). Note that most differences in volume are explained by height and the effect is tiny [Brain structure mediates the association between height and cognitive ability.](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/01/183525) You are accepting very weak data based purely based on confirmation bias. And you are over representing the differences that these studies even suggest _might_ be true. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1555 "2018-05-15T20:22:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They’re not being misrepresented, and you’re not being lumped in with anyone, you’re just being criticized for things that you’ve said. That’s horseshit, but I have corrected the record. Rat avatar, funny you mention confirmation bias. I have a sneaking suspicion you’d find a study with results of the same magnitude much less “weak” if it said what you wanted it to say. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1556 "2018-05-15T20:31:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > That’s horseshit, but I have corrected the record. > > Rat avatar, funny you mention confirmation bias. I have a sneaking suspicion you’d find a study with results of the same magnitude much less “weak” if it said what you wanted it to say. :dubious: Perhaps, but when you provide cites that call out the weakness of current studies as a “smoking gun” in support of your racial superiority claims the likelihood that I will be exposed to information that will change my mind is nil. Or did you not read your entire cite at this URL? [NeuWrite West -- Ask a Neuroscientist: Does a bigger brain make you smarter?](https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter) > [@](#): > > Correlational studies have only established a weak to moderate linear relationship between brain size an intelligence, which is enough fuel to ensure that the brain size and intelligence hypothesis doesn’t burn out, but does little to explain the true basis of human cognitive capacity. > [@](#): > > So, although having a big brain is somewhat predictive of having big smarts, intelligence probably depends much more on how efficiently different parts of your brain communicate with each other. Also note how you are ducking the cites I offered debunking your claims that weren’t even supported by your cites in the first place but you still won’t address them. I have tried to address every point you have made, and you have ignored mine…I will stand on my position until you actually can provide evidence for your baseless, racist claims. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1557 "2018-05-15T20:58:14Z")
Pish and tosh. I acknowledged the strength if Measure’s point. You never concede anything. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1558 "2018-05-15T21:14:17Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Pish and tosh. I acknowledged the strength if Measure’s point. You never concede anything. I am not Measure, and I have nothing to conceded to until you actually define what “white” is, which you refuse to do. I can address the problems with your claims for white supremacy, but I cannot concede that something is possible when you are unwilling to define your base assumptions. If you stated that people with normal lotus-o-deltoid type earlobes were less intelligent than those with semi-boloid earlobes how could I agree if you were unwilling to define what the difference was between lotus-o-deltoid and semi-boloid earlobes? You are simply begging the question, and refusing to address that point while making more and more outrageous claims. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1559 "2018-05-15T21:18:21Z")
Upthread I cited a large study, again from Stanford, that stated genomic groupings corresponded to self-reported race to an uncanny degree of accuracy. That wasn’t good enough for you, because nothing is ever good enough for you. You are a true Scotsman, sir! ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1560 "2018-05-15T21:48:06Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Upthread I cited a large study, again from Stanford, that stated genomic groupings corresponded to self-reported race to an uncanny degree of accuracy. That wasn’t good enough for you, because nothing is ever good enough for you. You are a true Scotsman, sir! You ignored my challenges to that cite, which selected a small number of “races”, and ignored areas of overlap, and the fact that of the “races” they studied, 50% weren’t even a “race” in the first place but an ethnic group, which the study itself calls out. > [@](#): > > Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) > **[Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/)** > > We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects... So tell me, Are Jewish people white? or are they Asian? if this is your definition, How about people from Arabic countries or from India? As they had a small sample size for Africans where do the Egyptians fit on your model. This study did NOTHING to show that race is a reliable genetic marker, only that when you cut down your sample size to extremes you can detect very coarse differences, but not for Hispanic people. Look at the goal of the study. > [@](#): > > One major goal is to quantify the correspondence between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and the major genetic structure that exists in the U.S. population. And note how they call out that the assumption you are making to support your white supremacist claims is called out as an assumption that requires verification. > [@](#): > > An underlying assumption is the relative homogeneity within a single SIRE group. \*\*The validity of this assumption must be evaluated. \*\*Furthermore, association studies among ethnically admixed populations are particularly vulnerable to spurious association. Maybe it will help if you read the studies vs linking to a pop-sci news letter? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=77) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=79)