I take it an average IQ of 79 for an entire population doesn’t mean all that much. OK…uh hunh.
Either IQ scores are a proxy for something related to intelligence, and real intelligence has been increasing for these 50 years, or IQ scores don’t measure much of anything and we are looking at some sort of odd statistical or measurement phenomenon.
I see no evidence personally that intelligence is changing, or that 50 years ago a black man who was of average black adult intelligence then would now be considered borderline retarded. I see no evidence beyond Flynn’s analysis that general ability is literally changing, and I am curious what you make of the disparity between the data Flynn has for IQ scores and the SAT scores I referenced. I’m not impressed with the idea that everyone was stupider back then, so we just didn’t notice.
I don’t think his work is particularly “controversial” because it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings and it’s just sort of a curious observation. But neither do I find it compelling evidence that intelligence itself is rising. And I think most people who happily promote Flynn are unaware that the numbers required to support his research are an acceptance that adult black IQ in 2002 is 85, and was 79 in 1972. They just sort of happily promote the tagline: “IQ scores are rising, and blacks are rising faster than whites.”
You can dance all you want about what “dumber” is, but you have no hesitation applying that pejorative to my position if I say black test scores are worse than whites. You just don’t want it applied to you if your position if you say black test scores are worse than whites. We’ve been scolded for this tit for tat once, and I am not personally fooled by your switch to “dumber” for “inferior.”
It’s an uncontroversial statement that IQ test scores have risen significantly for those 50 years. If the fact of the Flynn effect means that IQ scores aren’t a particularly good indicator for intelligence (which, I’ll note, I’ve said in many, many posts), then perhaps that is so.
I agree- I don’t think everyone was stupider back then- though IQ test scores were lower. You look to be trying to have it both ways- changing IQ tests don’t count against your genetic explanation because if they’re changing, they must not measure intelligence very well- but you want the disparity in other tests to support your genetic explanation… because SAT and LSAT (etc) do accurately reflect intelligence? I don’t think so.
And because lots and lots of data supports it.
I agree.
Er, yes- IQ scores are rising, and the test scores for black people are rising faster than whites. Yes, white people in 1945 scored, on average, values that would be in the 80s for tests calibrated for 1995 people.
I’ve applied it to you many, many times, well before we (you, actually) were “scolded”- and you’ve never actually denied that you believe it. It’s just that I don’t believe it, which I’ve said many, many times.
Yes, imagine that I don’t want a position I don’t hold applied to me! What a concept.
You believe that such differences are set in stone- I don’t. I think there’s no reason to believe the gap is immutable. Do you really honestly believe that 100% of the “remaining gap” is because of genetics? You don’t think ANY of it is due to things like lower teacher expectations (which uncontroversially exists and effects black students far more than white students)? You think educational opportunity really is 100% equal for black kids?
I think we can look at the various groups that have promoted the idea that black people are inherently, genetically less intelligent, on average- and if that idea (which I don’t believe is supported by data) is widely accepted, then these groups’ world view is just as likely to be advanced as yours. That’s what I find ludicrous- that you actually believe that, contrary to the agenda of pretty much every modern group that openly agrees with you on this, black people would benefit from widespread acceptance that they are genetically less intelligent on average.
iiandyiiii, you introduced the Flynn effect to this discussion as evidence that intelligence has been rising, and must not therefore be genetic. That’s Flynn’s basic point.
Feel free to defend it, or not.
Flynn’s conclusion is dependent upon an analysis which show the current IQ gap of adult blacks to be a full standard deviation below whites, and a gap closure of about 6 points out of 21 in 40 years. No new data shows a continued closure. No data shows current SES equality closes the gap.
If IQ is a proxy for intelligence, than you can argue that the Flynn effect shows intelligence is rising, and must not be (entirely) genetically based. But that also means that blacks are currently one standard deviation less intelligent than whites and asians.
If IQ is not a proxy for intelligence, than the Flynn effect is a curiosity, and there is no evidence that intelligence is rising.
You cannot simultaneously argue that the Flynn effect mean something about intelligence, but that blacks are not “dumber.”
In absolute terms, you think blacks are less intelligent than whites if you accept Flynn’s research. Much less intelligent. A full standard deviation in IQ “dumber” than whites, if you insist on injecting inflammatory rhetoric. IQ tests measure intelligence as best we can measure it. You have no high ground on the “who thinks who is dumber” rhetoric, and your position that adult blacks have an average IQ of 85 is far more equivalent to “dumber” than my position that blacks do poorly on the much more narrow skillset of academic tests.
I have argued that the skillset for taking tests on taught content has a persistent gap that is genetically driven. That skillset is not anywhere near as close a proxy for “intelligence” as is an IQ test.
Stop representing my position as one that conflates an IQ test with academic test scores. If you want to think all “test scores” should be lumped together, that is your prerogative.
If I have done so anywhere, it was unintentional.
IQs are an attempt to measure intelligence. Academic test scores measure a relatively narrow subset of cognitive function: the ability to master taught content.
I’m not interested in arguing about intelligence and IQ scores. I want to argue about a very measurable skillset: academic test scores.
What is the reason for the difference in those test score outcomes among SIRE groups, and why is it so stubbornly persistent despite equalization of SES?
I believe that any genetically different population is more likely than not to differ in average skillset outcome from another genetically different population. That’s called evolution, and it affects every population indiscriminately.
I believe that the SIRE groups of black and white are not clinal enough, nor admixed enough, for them to be considered genetically homogeneous populations.
Therefore, it is more likely than not that even at the SIRE group level, those populations will differ for genetically driven outcomes.
No, those outcomes are not exclusively genetic. Culture and average differences in SES are two examples of nurturing influences that drive differences as well. That’s why we have to look at those, and normalize them, if we are going to find a residual difference that is genetic.
No, I do not believe “teacher expectation” is a very good reason. I think the studies are lame, heavily biased toward the 'black experience" and completely unpersuasive for score outcomes from HBCUs, for example. They are not uncontroversial as explanations, and given the breadth and persistence of scoring gaps, would have to assume some sort of giant incompetence on the part of almost every teacher, everywhere. Silly. I believe most teachers want their students to achieve and succeed, and want the test scores of all of their students to exceed expectations. I find the idea that most teachers simply give up on a black kid to be naive.
I think that, as a society, we need to get past the idea that SIRE groups are genetically equal. For sporting events, I think we are well past it already. The average joe I meet and talk to does not think whites are secretly as good at basketball but have suffered from low coaching expectations, crummy parenting, and oppositional culture. They have long since accepted which SIRE group will be over-represented on the basketball court, and don’t even think about it, period. But if pressed, they’d admit to a casual acceptance that whites “just aren’t as good, on average.”
For academic scores, we need to make the same acceptance leap: There is an average performance difference, and no amount of nurturing is going to bridge that gap. We need to accept it. Because it has such a large downstream effect for jobs and life success, we need to see what we can do to ameliorate the disparity which occurs when we let mother nature do the sorting. She has no concept of fairness, and so when we make social policy, we should decide collectively where we can inject fairness. We do this for sexual differences. We do this for the disabled. We do this for the elderly. That’s what social fairness is all about.
I’m not really interested in whether or not the masses accept what science says. Most of them cannot articulate an argument about genetic prevalence differences. Most of them cannot articulate why SIRE groups have biological differences rooted in evolution and migratory patterns. Most of them are undereducated, and most of them will jump to the typical fallacy that an average group difference means that “I am smarter/dumber than you. Neener neener neener.”
Social policy needs to get beyond the ignorance of, and oversimplification by the masses. It needs to be based on science and data.
Instead, what’s happening in our country now is that the trumpet of genetic equality is drowning out more sombre voices cautioning that SIRE groups are not inherently equal in potential. And now (with Fisher v UTexas, e.g.), that trumpet of egalitarianism is being used against blacks and hispanics. If we are all equal genetically, then the only thing that should make a difference is opportunity. Under such a system, UTexas will end up with a quota of underperforming black students from black high schools, lumped at the bottom of the college classes in weak courses. High-performing blacks from higher SES backgrounds will have a very difficult time getting into schools anywhere, because whites and asians from equal or lower SES backgrounds will outperform them. You’ll basically end up driving backward the last 20 or 30 years of progess.
Blacks will benefit from race-based AA, yes. Elimination of race-based AA will be a detriment. And no argument for race-based AA will hold up for blacks from equal or higher SES status. You don’t get to ride into admission on the coattails of your oppressed grandparents. At some point support for race-based AA will be withdrawn for high-SES groups. That point is here, with Fisher v University of Texas.
On what grounds will you argue for race-based AA next? That some rich black kid had crummy parents and teachers who thought he was a bozo? Good luck with that.
Even on this you are wrong, the masses of scientists are not supporting you, they are indeed smarter than you.
And guess where the ones making social policy consult? Once again, currently the vast majority of experts do not agree with what you spew.
History shows that there is no luck on that, most experts agree that it is a moot point, and even the few that you think support your views (in reality he is just another “Idiot” according to you as I have seen he does not agree with virtually all your silly points), are not going to let genes drive those societal solutions.
I have to add that as in the “are humans apes?” thread Hawks just does not like what scientists are concluding regarding the semantics of it all, it does not distract from his realization that indeed, there is no genetic evidence to claim that genes drive the differences in intelligence among races. So far, it is just a flight of fancy and a big “if”.
But for the matter at hand, it is a clear indication that scientists (even the ones that are active and cherry picked to make them support prejudice) will not be the friends to the numbers of prejudiced people out there even if a difference is found, and just like in the heart condition medicine, it is more likely that virtually all “races” will benefit, the harm is in assuming that old race definitions should prevent that benefit to all from taking place.
We don’t know yet what specifically is the reason for the remaining test-score gap. I don’t think it’s “stubbornly persistent”- for one thing, by some measures (other than IQ test scores) it has shrunk, and I don’t believe efforts to eliminate it have been more than half-hearted and political in nature.
No we don’t, because there’s no reason to believe this is so.
Science does not say what you think it says. There is no genetic evidence for your genetic explanation- no reason to think that the differences are immutable.
Affirmative action has been under attack in the courts for over 30 years, since Bakke. AA has also been under attack at the ballot box for over 20 years. The result is that AA has either been banned outright or significantly curtailed. This process will continue. AA is going away, no matter what.
The most interesting part of this process, to my mind, doesn’t involve black Americans at all. Ron Unz, wealthy businessman and right wing activist, has research demonstrating that Asian students are being short changed by pro-white affirmative action, in college admissions. Asians do much better than whites unless the admissions process is rigged to favor non-academic factors.
There’s also substantial evidence that selective colleges are engaging in pro-male affirmative action to get gender balance. Girls on average get much better grades, have better vocabularies, better social skills and more inclination to conform to institutional norms. A purely objective admissions process would give selective schools classes that were 60/40 female.
As a practical matter, it doesn’t make much difference if a few more or a few less blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders become doctors or lawyers. The real problem facing these groups is the large scale failure of so many of them to finish high school and get decent jobs in the skilled trades, followed by the subsequent failure to have their children in stable, two parent families.
The “blacks” who qualify for the AA preference in admission to elite schools are overwhelmingly not native born, working class black Americans. Those who qualify are largely upper class Africans, upper middle classs West Indians, and the American born children of black fathers and white, college educated mothers. (Having a white, college educated mother makes a big difference in your life outcome, no matter what it is you happen to look like.) So AA to elite schools makes no difference to working class black folks.
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant “What is the reason for the difference in those test score outcomes among SIRE groups, and why is it so stubbornly persistent despite equalization of SES?”
Let’s put it this way: We know the reason is not SES. Wealthy black parents with graduate level educations have children who underscore whites with poor, high-school level or below parents.
It’s not clear to me what additional fuller-hearted efforts and better political initiatives you might propose to help these relatively rich black kids perform better.
The academic test score gap shrank when we made huge and specific efforts to get rid of the environmental disadvantages, and then when we measured differences which used groups for which those advantages were normalized, we still found a large and residual gap. That gap has not been shrinking any more. As I’ve mentioned before, you can nurture me to be a better basketball player, but you can’t nurture me into the NBA. I don’t have the genes for it.
by John Hawks: “But I actually think that moral arguments based on genetic “realities” are ultimately dangerous.
For one thing, one-tenth of 1 percent of 3 billion is a heck of a large number – 3 million nucleotide differences between two random genomes. Most of those genetic differences don’t make a significant phenotypic difference. But a few do. There is no argument from the overall level of similarity (99.9 percent similar, or whatever) that cannot apply equally to some specific similarity or difference…
For another thing, if we condition people to believe that we should treat people according to their genotype (which is, after all, mostly identical), then what happens tomorrow when scientists find some really important genetic difference? When it suddenly matters what allele you have?..
Genetic similarities, whatever they may amount to, are not a reason for moral action.”
I think you are missing his point. The tenor of this essay is to be careful about jumping to a conclusion that we are all genetically–and therefore morally–the same. We do not derive moral equality from genetic equality. His point, I believe, is that we shouldn’t take a moral stance that we treat everyone the same because everyone has 99.9% the same nucleotides. Rather, we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that genetic science will uncover significant differences. He uses disease conditions as his example, but the point is larger: there may be many significant differences which we uncover among humans.
I argue that we already make “moral” accommodations based on genes. If an individual is mentally challenged due to a genetic difference (say, Down syndrome), do we not try to make accommodations for that genetic difference? How is that not a moral decision that that individual has the same worth as we do, and that we should find a way to accommodate a situation which was not his fault?
I’m not an expert, but I’m working on it. Hopefully, I’ll have a fully fleshed out proposal in the next few decades. If we’re lucky, someone will beat me to it.
You don’t know that. If you had grown up playing basketball every day, worked extremely hard at it, and had good coaches, you’d probably be a very good basketball player today. Maybe not NBA level (or maybe so)- but whatever your ethnic background, there are people with the same background who (with the right “nurture”) could become amazing basketball players. There are undoubtedly athletic freaks from virtually every nation on earth who could excel in the NBA, NFL, boxing, hockey, etc, if they grew up playing it and were sufficiently motivated.
I don’t doubt that genetics has something to do with it- there is almost certainly a genetic component to physical strength, stamina, speed, height, agility, etc- and similarly, the smartest people in the world probably have great genes for intelligence. But none of this says anything about different genes for different populations. Genes may be part of the explanation for the basketball-star gap, or the test-score gap, but we won’t know until such genes are found. Right now, there’s no reason to favor that hypothesis from all the rest.
I would like to point out to the quite recent advances in epigenetics that basically allow acquired characteristics to be transmitted to further generations. Also the new new field of “junk DNA” that is, very recently, understood not to be junk at all, but coding for still another way by which the environment influences genetic expression. So, it seems that Lamarck was not completely wrong after all; this opens a window of opportunity to study short-term (very few generation) effects in characteristics normally very inheritable - like nearsightedness, height, age of puberty, tendency to depression and anxiety, etc. Perhaps IQ as well.
In fact, genes are always shaped by the environment, but until recently there were only 2 standard mechanisms discussed: mutations causing differences in survivability (very slow), sexual selection (can be much faster, but still slow). We are now seeing other means by which a population adapts to its environment very fast.
Yes, no real differences in the quality of a person, or intelligence, or beauty, etc…
But obviously and undeniably there are minor genetic differences or otherwise two dark parents from Kenya would be able to produce a baby that looks Swedish. Some people characterize this as “race” which is accurate and certainly not objectionable. A Great Dane doesn’t look a whole lot like a Poodle and they are both dogs. We call those breeds.
I find it hard to accept that, given the much larger pool of white basketball players in grade school, and the nearly universal appeal of being an NBA star, that the reason for white underperformance in this skillset is under-motivation. That’s just a polite way of saying white players are lazier. I don’t buy the “lazy” explanation for almost skillset difference within any SIRE group. White players do have the advantage of having better alternate careers, but the idea that they pick those careers before crapping out at basketball does not seem likely to me, and there is an overwhelming reversal of starting pool ratio to NBA ratio for these two SIRE groups.