I suspect I have a better grasp of what IQ tests show than you think I do. Among other things, they are certainly closer to some kind of intelligence parameter than is a given by an academic exam on content that was expected to be assimilated by a student. I don’t have an intimate familiarity with how these tests are administered and evaluated.
I understand you think the IQ gap is still closing.
I understand you think Lynn’s data–with which I am only peripherally familiar; I live pretty much in an academic world when it comes to “tests”–is “crap.”
But I’m asking iiandyii for your position, so that I don’t end debating the wrong thing. I have understood you to champion James Flynn’s research as significant evidence against a genetic supposition for black-white outcome gaps. That research is based on his analysis that the average IQ of adult american blacks in 1972 was 79, and is now 85. I was familiar with the general notion of the “Flynn effect” but had no idea what numbers he uses to support that effect until you cited the article. The Wikipedia article is kind of confused and jumbled, in my opinion, and apparently forgets to lay out the actual mind-boggling IQ estimates that Flynn uses.
Here’s my question, and I’m pretty sure it’s a “yes” or “no”:
Does iiandyiiii hold that the average US adult black IQ was 79 in 1972, and the current average adult IQ for blacks in the United States is 85?
LOL- what’s your obsession with this question? I’ve already answered it- multiple times if one considers that every time I’ve said “the test-score gap exists”, that includes the IQ test score gap. I think that Flynn makes a persuasive case about the average test scores from 72 and 02 (2002, not “current”). Feel free to call that a “yes”. Flynn also reports that the average IQ test scores for black people from 1995 match the test scores for white people in 1945- so I also hold that the data indicates white people in 1945 probably scored, on average, about 85 or so. I don’t know why you’re asking me a math question (add up the numbers, divide by the number of test-takers, and that’s it- no opinion involved). I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by data that seems to show the test-score gap shows up for IQ tests as well as other tests, and at about the same statistical magnitude.
It’s also funny that you refer to Flynn’s data as “mind-boggling”, considering the fake data Lynn reports.
Just in case you’re trying to change the subject, I’ll repeat the important point: We have Flynn’s data that shows the test-score gap has closed to some degree, and we have other data (like from the NAEP) that shows the gap has shrunk.
There’s no reason to believe the gap is immutable and no genetic evidence for the genetic explanation for the test-score gap. There’s not really much left for your “black people are, on average, inherently genetically dumber” argument.
Does Chief Pedant hold that black people, on average, are inherently genetically less intelligent than white people? Does Chief Pedant hold that black people with very high intelligence, on average, have inferior genes for intelligence to pass onto their offspring then white people with equally high intelligence?
Well I think that the point is that if genes explain much of the gaps between individuals, it does not necessarily follow that genes explain much of the gaps between racial groups.
Which is correct, but nevertheless one can look at attributes for which (1) genes are known to drive much of the differences among individuals; and (2) it is uncontroversial as to whether whether genes drive much of the differences among racial groups as to those same attributes.
Examples of such attributes are blood type; skeletal shape; and eye color.
As far as I know, in pretty much every such case, genes do in fact (in large part) drive differences among groups too.
So the reasonable conclusion is that (1) it’s plausible that genes drive much of the differences in intelligence among groups; and (2) without knowing anything more, it’s a reasonable assumption that they do.
But of course we do know more: It’s known that group differences in intelligence are widespread, perhaps nearly universal in space; widespread, perhaps nearly universal in time; and stubbornly resist efforts to make them go away.
This is not reasonable, unless you think intelligence is just another characteristic that can be treated like skin color or blood type. I think this is laughable.
But I don’t use Lynn’s data, and am not promoting it as a part of my arguments. On the other hand, if I accepted your number that the american black average IQ is 85, and your notion that the environmental influence is what makes that number so much higher than it was in 1972, it appears to me Lynn would be right in line with your paradigm when he says the IQ of poorer black nations is under 80. This fits your view of the data perfectly, right? The only thing left for you to argue is the reason for it. But if we take a really crappy black-majority country, their environment is going to lead to some abysmal average IQs. As it turns out, you are Lynn’s most robust supporter in this thread so far!
You are promoting the notion that the average white IQ in 1945 on an intelligence scale that establishes 85 as borderline mentally challenged, was 85. This would make the black score in 1945 what…70? 65?
This is retarded. Literally retarded. Yet it is a key piece of the paradigm you hold that says there is no genetic evidence. You want to hold that IQ measurements have been shown to be fairly malleable; a product of the environment and not constant. To support that view, you have to support the analysis of a guy who extrapolates and machinates various numbers, extending them backward (and therefore presumably forward) to absolutely ludicrous conclusions.
Worse, his own numbers lead to a figure for american blacks that puts their entire population average at borderline mentally challenged, and half of their population under that number. You’ve got some splainin’ to do that I wouldn’t want to have to splain to Orcenio, that’s for sure.
I’m going to stick with an arbitrary position that Flynn’s research and conclusions are horseshit. The sniff test for this concept certainly comes from that end of the horse.
But out of curiosity, what was the white (or any other) IQ adjusted for today back before the industrial revolution, and what do we think it’s gonna be in 2050?
Orcenio: come on over, buddy. You’ve got a new friend in me.
Except that Lynn had no data. Convenient that you leave that part out.
Fine, so you don’t believe in the Flynn effect. Considering all the data that shows that IQ has steadily risen over time (or, the Flynn effect), I think it’s pretty clear that IQ test scores don’t provide much information relating to genetics. Ditto with any other test scores. Of course, I guess you deny that IQ scores have increased.
Not at all surprising. At least you used the right word for your position.
There is no genetic evidence for your genetic explanation. There is data that shows the gap has shrunk. There’s no reason to believe the gap is immutable. Your argument is unscientific. I await your next attempt to change the subject.
The answer to the first question is, “Yes, depending on which type of skillset we are measuring. For g, yes.”
The answer to the second question is “No” if you are talking about the actual “genes for intelligence” but “Yes” if you are talking about offspring regressing to a lower mean because of other genes carried in the gene pool of highly intelligent blacks. All outliers for various genetically-determined traits tend to have offspring that regress to the mean for the population represented by the outliers. I do not think this regression to the mean is a controversial notion.
You don’t think the notion that intelligent black people pass on inferior genes to their children (on average for the entire gene pool) then intelligent white people is controversial? Ok, I’ll just educate you- yes, this is a controversial notion.
See, but I think this is the subject: the relative contribution of genes to disparate skillset outcomes in populations.
And underpinning your argument is the requirement to believe that whole populations–in the US 50 years ago, and around the world today–are mentally retarded.
I think it’s true that you can state it pejoratively and annoy people who are relatively uneducated on the topic. But I do not think the idea that a parent outlier population has offspring that tend to regress to the mean for the whole population is scientifically controversial.
You are very incorrect here, but I’ll point out that underpinning your argument is the requirement that the Flynn effect, which is widely accepted and non-controversial, is false.
The assertion that intelligent black people will pass on inferior genes for intelligence, on average, as compared to intelligent white people, is controversial.
I will try to do more reading about the Flynn effect.
In 1972, more than 110,000 SAT scores were above 600 for the verbal portion.
In 1993, after two decades of rising IQs, fewer than 75,000 scores were above 600 for the verbal section, even though the total number of students taking the SAT rose by a half million or so. As a consequence of gradually declining scores, the SAT was “re-centered” in 1995.
Here is another graph showing the SAT over time, as those IQs were shooting up. Note that some, but not all, of the decline in the '50s and '60s might be attributed to the exam being given to a broader cross-section of students (but note my example about the verbal test 1972-1993, just above).
Not really. The exact same phenomenon holds true for highly intelligent whites and asians: if they are really outliers, their kids will be dumber than they are. They will just regress to a mean for their population.
But if someone sees regression to the mean as upsetting, point them here for an explanation, and an example using height. And a bit of zinger: “What holds true for height also holds true for other quantitative traits, such as intelligence. This is what worried Galton. He was a very intelligent member of British aristocracy who was interested in genetics as a way to maintain intelligence in his family. He was really the founder of the eugenics movement. His findings must have been very discouraging for him.”
By the way, I am not positive, but I thought Honesty said he was associated with UIC. If he hasn’t bolted for good again, maybe he can “school” us about this article.
The problem here is that if genes drove the differences in intelligence, then the regression towards the mean would had pointed more towards a genetic explanation in cases of black and white matings:
Ok, I get it- you’re assuming that the genetic explanation (that blacks are inherently, genetically dumber on average) is true and non-controversial. Why you’d assume this, I don’t know. But it is controversial, and the idea that intelligent black people pass on inferior genes for intelligence is also controversial. You’re just wrong about this. You’re wrong about what the “mean” is, genetically. And you’re very wrong if you think this genetic mean is non-controversial.
I don’t assume a genetic explanation is non-controversial, but I do try to hold to a paradigm that is consistent and cogent.
If it’s the case that intelligence is hereditary, outliers–either highly intelligent or highly unintelligent–will have offspring whose average intelligence regresses toward the mean of the whole gene pool carried by the parents. For complex traits like intelligence, where a number of genes and a number of interactions are possible, that gene pool will reflect lots of genes that generally reflect a subset of the parent’s population. This is why it’s hard to breed intelligence. You could do it, but it would take longer than a trait with a simple Mendelian inheritance involving only a single pair of dominant and recessive allele. Think of developing a new breed of dogs. You have to continue breeding until all the old stray prevalences are gone and the population you are breeding for only contains a gene pool with “pure” genes for that breed.
So in disparate human populations, if those populations have different average genetically driven intelligence (or any other trait), then outliers born within those populations will regress toward disparate means.
I agree that genetically driven intelligence differences among human populations is controversial. However, the concept of regression to the mean for outliers is not controversial.
As I mentioned earlier, this was tested for by Jensen, who used sibling IQs instead of offspring IQs in order to normalize environmental variables. The sibling IQs regressed toward different means–reflecting their SIRE group–as would be expected if the underlying parent populations contained disparate gene pools for IQ.