Science as racism?

[Dancing David]

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html


Rushton and Jensen said their new study confirmed their earlier conclusion that Black-White IQ differences are 80 percent heritable, an estimate based on a review of the literature in the 2005 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Rushton argued that given that the IQ differences were 80 percent genetic, no more than a 3-IQ point convergence would be possible.

[Avita]

I have no idea about the heritability numbers, but whoever did this study is banking on people knowing very little about intelligence testing. WAIS-III, the test that I am most familiar with, and one of the most respected and widely-used IQ tests out there, gives a score with error margins. A 3-point error margin would be a minimal margin, and it's not that uncommon to see 10 point error margins, or higher, depending on which confidence interval one uses, and the degree of accuracy in the administration of the test. Furthermore, the same person being tested twice with this test would, on average, have scores that are different by about 5 points. If that person had been trained in the kinds of tasks used in the test in between the two tests, the difference would be even higher. So to me, it's ridiculous to claim that IQ tests are precise to the point that they won't change more than 3 points.

Edited: Forgot to add, there is, in fact, a documented 3-point difference in IQ scores between Americans as a whole and Canadians as a whole, discovered during the original norming process. The average Canadian IQ is 103, not 100. Given that the two cultures have similar genetic makeup and variety, share a language and mostly share a culture, I do wonder how the authors of the article would like to explain this one away. The way the difference is used in practice is to ignore it, because really, the usual error margins more than cover the difference, anyway, and the only time it becomes important is when the score is on the borderline of a cutoff that will determine what kinds of services someone receives.

[Katana]

I don't understand how they came to the 80% heritability. Also, this was a fairly cursory description as most press releases are. It doesn't describe anything about how the study was conducted, where they obtained their data, and how many subjects were involved. This is all it said:

The researchers reported on the Wonderlic Personnel Test, the Kaufmann Assessment Battery for Children, the Woodcock-Johnson test, and the Differential Ability Scale, which all combined to show a Black gain of less than 1 IQ point over the last 30 years.
So you have four different tests here. How many of the subjects took all of them, one of them, two? If each only took one, can the scores really be compared across them? I don't know very much about each of these tests, but this seems like a bit of a methodological flaw.

Also, I have to wonder whether a 15-point gap in average IQ scores between two very heterogeneous populations is important anyway, especially in light of the margins for error and variation among individuals tested on separate occasions that Avita mentioned.

Having said that, if (big "if") what they found is true, how would it be racism?

[Yahzi]

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html
That's not science.

[Avita]

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

[drkitten]

And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

Jensen is well-established to be complicit in the "fraudulent" school of IQ studies as established by Cyril Burt.

[Katana]

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

Thanks for that perspective, Avita. This study is sounding less and less credible.

[Dave1001]

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html

Thse always struck me as more about binary race construct than science. Where is everybody who is neither black nor white? Where are the people who are both? In varying degres and percentages? I'd like to see studies like this done and reported with more comprehensive and meaningful genetic subpopulations.

I would like research into intelligence(s) and subpopulations to continue, and to be reported and discussed, but I'd like to see more critical thought and open-ended inquiry going into it.

[Katana]

Thse always struck me as more about binary race construct than science. Where is everybody who is neither black nor white? Where are the people who are both? In varying degres and percentages? I'd like to see studies like this done and reported with more comprehensive and meaningful genetic subpopulations.

I would like research into intelligence(s) and subpopulations to continue, and to be reported and discussed, but I'd like to see more critical thought and open-ended inquiry going into it.

Agreed. Haven't we learned that black versus white isn't a (ahem) black and white issue genetically?

I was thinking about the thread's title. Whether racism was the underlying motivation for publishing this study, I don't know. I googled both authors, and it is clear that they have made their careers on their somewhat controversial views of race, genetics, and intelligence. For them, this study is another piece of evidence that what they have been saying all along is correct.

[Dancing David]

Having said that, if (big "if") what they found is true, how would it be racism?

I used a question mark? To denote that this might or might not be racism, and it is also an attention grabber in the title.

If it is found to be true then it raises all the usual questions about what different factors effect an IQ score that are not associated with race.

[bpesta22]

As argued in the thread on Spearman's g, as skeptics, perhaps you should read the article before attempting to discredit it.

It's only 2 pages; I will email it to anyone who wants it.

Don't mistake ignorance of the field for junk science.

[bpesta22]

Agreed. Haven't we learned that black versus white isn't a (ahem) black and white issue genetically?

I was thinking about the thread's title. Whether racism was the underlying motivation for publishing this study, I don't know. I googled both authors, and it is clear that they have made their careers on their somewhat controversial views of race, genetics, and intelligence. For them, this study is another piece of evidence that what they have been saying all along is correct.

100 years of worth of evidence to be correct. Just one example of the evidence comes from a meta-analysis (2001) of 6,246,729 people.

The only thing Rushton and Jensen claim in this specific article is that the race gap is not shrinking, despite what Dickens and Flynn argue in the same issue.

[bpesta22]

Oh, my, what I lost by only barely skimming the article - thanks, Katana, for listing the actual tests they used. The Kaufmann and the DAS I know little about, but they are administered only with children, so right away, I wonder about them being generalized to adults. The WJ is not an IQ test - it is two batteries of a variety of subtests, one battery focusing on cognitive performance, and the other on "achievement" - that is, knowledge gained through learning, rather than innate ability. Although the cognitive components are often similar to the tasks used on IQ tests, the WJ is not designed to produce a single score comparable to an IQ score. A major reason for that is that hardly anybody ever administers the complete battery of tests - it takes far too long, and is usually unnecessary for the purposes of assessment. Finally, the WPT, from the brief description of it that I just read, seems to be designed to be comparable to an IQ test, but takes 12 minutes to administer. By comparison, the WAIS takes at least 2 hours. For some reason, I am highly doubtful that the results on the WPT are all that accurate. And I am left with the burning question - since all four of the tests the researchers used don't seem to be adequate for the assessment of IQ, why in the world were those four tests selected in the first place? Could it be because these tests produced the results the researchers wanted?

They reference their earlier work-- Rushton and Jensen 2005, wherein they show that the race difference correlates with the g factor; not the specific test of IQ used in each study. From any of the tests used, one can get the g score and use that for the correlation.

If these guys are racist it's odd that they-- in the same 2 page article, though not talked about in the media discussion of it-- argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

So, they're the particular blend of white racists who think they're better than blacks but not quite as good as Asians?

[Dave1001]

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html

It's interesting that this is a press release by Rushton. Dancing David, how did you come across it?

My big question is how is race determined in the recent tests? Self-identification? What about all the research by population geneticists showing that there is considerable african-european admixture in America? And how are latinos (a huge portion of the American public today) categorized and how do they impact this data?

[bpesta22]

Interesting-- if you click on the link above that you can go to his vita and click on the article to see the 2 page publication.

[bpesta22]

I have no idea about the heritability numbers, but whoever did this study is banking on people knowing very little about intelligence testing. WAIS-III, the test that I am most familiar with, and one of the most respected and widely-used IQ tests out there, gives a score with error margins. A 3-point error margin would be a minimal margin, and it's not that uncommon to see 10 point error margins, or higher, depending on which confidence interval one uses, and the degree of accuracy in the administration of the test. Furthermore, the same person being tested twice with this test would, on average, have scores that are different by about 5 points. If that person had been trained in the kinds of tasks used in the test in between the two tests, the difference would be even higher. So to me, it's ridiculous to claim that IQ tests are precise to the point that they won't change more than 3 points.

Edited: Forgot to add, there is, in fact, a documented 3-point difference in IQ scores between Americans as a whole and Canadians as a whole, discovered during the original norming process. The average Canadian IQ is 103, not 100. Given that the two cultures have similar genetic makeup and variety, share a language and mostly share a culture, I do wonder how the authors of the article would like to explain this one away. The way the difference is used in practice is to ignore it, because really, the usual error margins more than cover the difference, anyway, and the only time it becomes important is when the score is on the borderline of a cutoff that will determine what kinds of services someone receives.

You're ignoring the principle of aggregation and how that affects margins of error.

Sure, study one person's IQ and it might vary by 3 or 5 or 10 points over time, tests and testers.

Study 1000s of people classified on some dimension (e.g., race) and this becomes far less of a problem. Whether one is studying IQ or agression, any test measuring one or the other construct would be validated by using lots of people and not one or two.

Even the the classical model of reliability (invented by Spearman, coincidentally!) assumes this: A person's observed score on a test = his or her true score, plus error.

Errors can be positive (artificially inflate your score) or negative (artificially reduce your score). For any single person, the error score might be very large, but test large groups of people and the error scores become normally distributed with a mean of zero!

In fact, one can use the idea of error to make a fairly ingenious (imo) prediction: If the black white gap is real, then regression to the mean should occur differentially for black and white parents re their kids IQ's. That is, people selected based on an extreme IQ score should have kids whose IQ regresses back to the race group mean IQ.

The original study referenced in the OP (rushton and jensen) reviews lots of data on this issue.

Match two couples (one white; one black) on SES, income, education, etc, and IQ. The key is to match on extreme IQs to then observe how the kids' IQ regresses to the mean.

So, some matched couples will have IQ's of 120; others IQ's of 70.

For the 120-IQ parent group, their black kids' average 100 for IQ; wheras, the white kids average 110. So, regression to the mean is twice as strong for black kids, because the black kids are regressing to their group mean of 85-- a longer distance away; whereas, white kids are regressing to their group mean of 100-- a shorter distance away (and hence less regression).

Just the opposite happens for matched parents with IQs of 70-- regression up to the mean is twice as strong for the kids with white parents!

The black kids' IQ is now 78 (half the difference up to their true mean) and the white kids IQ is now 85 -- more regression for whites because the distance to their true mean (100) is now farther.

Any gouldists out there who can suggest an environmental or cultural explanation that accounts for this pattern of regression to the mean?

[bpesta22]

Oh, finally, the original article-- rushton and jensen, 2005, is a lit review of some 30 years of research on the issue.

It's 60 pages long, but it's worth the read to the extent you want answers to these questions. At the very least, reading it should convince you that arm chair dismissals here from people not in the field are inaccurate and frankly naive (e.g., that a chemist could come in, think for 60 seconds, and generate problems/flaws in the study that would not have occurred to the person with the phd in the area and 200 pubs on the topic).

Yahzi's famed cultural hypothesis, for example, is thoroughly trashed, though, I'm not sure that Jensen is aware of the gorilla study.

[Yahzi]

argue the asian mean IQ is 106.
Just as an example of how utterly shoddy these people's work is:

When they say "Asian," what do they mean? Did these people ever go to, you know, Asia, and adminster any tests?

Why... no. They have deduced the IQ of half the planet from the sample which chose to emigrate to California.

First-class science here, folks! We don't need no stinking data!

[Yahzi]

At the very least, reading it should convince you that arm chair dismissals here from people not in the field are inaccurate and frankly naive
Theologians say exactly the same thing. In exactly the same tone of voice.

(e.g., that a chemist could come in, think for 60 seconds, and generate problems/flaws in the study that would not have occurred to the person with the phd in the area and 200 pubs on the topic).
Notice how he puts "would not have occurred" above, as if these clever people can be counted on to be aware of all the relevant facts. And then, in the very next sentence, admits they are unaware of the most basic facts:

I'm not sure that Jensen is aware of the gorilla study.
Jensen, being a Genius Of The First Order, can safely dismiss data he is utterly unaware of. But heaven forbid the Yahzi dog should sniff a steaming pile of fecal matter and declare it stinky.

[Earthborn]

In fact, one can use the idea of error to make a fairly ingenious (imo) prediction: If the black white gap is real, then regression to the mean should occur differentially for black and white parents re their kids IQ's.I don't understand what you mean with "if the black white gap is real". Are you refering to a cultural gap or a difference in average IQ? Does "real" mean in this case mean "existing" or "caused by innate differences" ?

Wouldn't the same effect occur if the differences in average IQ are real, but caused by cultural influence?

[Jekyll]

For the 120-IQ parent group, their black kids' average 100 for IQ; wheras, the white kids average 110. So, regression to the mean is twice as strong for black kids, because the black kids are regressing to their group mean of 85-- a longer distance away; whereas, white kids are regressing to their group mean of 100-- a shorter distance away (and hence less regression).

Just the opposite happens for matched parents with IQs of 70-- regression up to the mean is twice as strong for the kids with white parents!

The black kids' IQ is now 78 (half the difference up to their true mean) and the white kids IQ is now 85 -- more regression for whites because the distance to their true mean (100) is now farther.

Any gouldists out there who can suggest an environmental or cultural explanation that accounts for this pattern of regression to the mean?

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

[Dave1001]

Biracials smarter than white people?

Here's a gem buried in on of Rushton's papers. I read this to say that all things equal, white people will have smarter kids if they procreate with black people than with other white people, because of the advantages of hybrid vigor:


http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PAID-1999.pdf

Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression -unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn

J. Philippe Rushton, 1988

"An alternative hypothesis is hybrid vigor. This is the opposite of inbreeding depression and occurs because genes for intelligence are dominant in the Mendelian sense due to their adaptive value (Jensen, 1983). The more out-breeding there is, the greater the probability that a dominant gene for high IQ will occur. Hybrid vigor, however, is a much weaker effect than inbreeding depression."

[Dancing David]

It's interesting that this is a press release by Rushton. Dancing David, how did you come across it?

My big question is how is race determined in the recent tests? Self-identification? What about all the research by population geneticists showing that there is considerable african-european admixture in America? And how are latinos (a huge portion of the American public today) categorized and how do they impact this data?


I believe I found a link at http://www.fair.org and it linked to a blog that linked to the article.

[Dancing David]

I don't understand what you mean with "if the black white gap is real". Are you refering to a cultural gap or a difference in average IQ? Does "real" mean in this case mean "existing" or "caused by innate differences" ?

Wouldn't the same effect occur if the differences in average IQ are real, but caused by cultural influence?

The article alleges that the gap is 80% hereditary in the study.

I feel that personal circumstance, family history and social/culture account for the major impact.

[bpesta22]

Just as an example of how utterly shoddy these people's work is:

When they say "Asian," what do they mean? Did these people ever go to, you know, Asia, and adminster any tests?

Why... no. They have deduced the IQ of half the planet from the sample which chose to emigrate to California.

First-class science here, folks! We don't need no stinking data!

Jesus Christ Yahzi, it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing. This is worse than a strawman as you're too lazy apparently to even skim through an article to see what's been done.

The assumptions you make here illustrate how naive your knowledge of the area is. I rarely respond directly to your points because it's clear when you speak (on this specific topic) you just don't understand it. Independent of who is right or wrong here, you just don't understand it.

All you gots to do is actually read one of the articles. This is pure intellectual laziness couched smugly. It's the worst trait a so-called skeptic can possess. If you spent two minutes searching through the rushton and jensen article, you would see that your claims here are nothing but ignorant.

Let me do the work for you:

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.







Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

[bpesta22]

Oooh, ooh! Me! Me!

You're just restating the known data about IQ testing in slightly more convoluted manner*. This novel testing still fails to eliminate peer support, teachers behaviour and cultural expectation which could plausibly drag the group mean down. As such all the standard criticisms still stand.

The same results would hold for a comparison of the heights of adults in a malnourished environment verses the heights of well fed adults.

*Regression to the mean is needed to preserve normal distributions within populations, and this idea dates back to Galton in the middle of the 19th century.

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.

[Steven Howard]

If these guys are racist it's odd that they-- in the same 2 page article, though not talked about in the media discussion of it-- argue the asian mean IQ is 106.

So, they're the particular blend of white racists who think they're better than blacks but not quite as good as Asians?

Is it your assertion that "Asians are smart" is not a commonly held racial stereotype?

[bpesta22]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

[Jekyll]

edit: Ah, I had an idea. Let me retract this specific offer to you re $50. I will make a more general one here in another thread, where if you're interested, you can accept.



Yes, Galton, Darwin's cousin, first to do this type of stuff, mentioned on the first page of the Rushton and Jensen article.

I urge you to spend an hour skimming through the Rushton and Jensen article. If you can't get it, pm me and I will email it to you.

I think the answer to your example is provided therein, and I think one hour spent reading it will convince you that the arguments levied against the data herein are strawmans.

In fact, if you read the article, and post a detailed honest critique of it here-- open-minded skeptical like, I will donate 50$ to the JREF (with my paycheck coming at the end of November) in your name.
That's a nice offer.

It's 60 pages long, but then I probably will end up reading anyway, having read the mismeasure of man a couple of weeks ago.

However, if you could give an off the cuff explanation of why the behaviour regarding the regression to the mean is inconsistent with an environmentally dampened IQ, I'd appreciate it.

Count me in as a maybe for the paper review, I'll get back to you after the weekend.

[Katana]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.

[Steven Howard]

Nope; I think it's fair to say the stereotype is commonly held.

I still think it odd to attribute racist motives to people who argue that a different race is smarter on average than is your race.

Unless it's a ploy-- they don't really believe it, but make up the data as a pretext so they can implement their racist agendas on other groups-- saving asians for last.

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1619402&postcount=1

Whites have the highest IQ out of any other race right, higher than Indians, Pakistanis, Southeast Asians, Arabs, way higher than Sub-Saharan Africans, Mestizo’s, aboriginals, Native-Americans. Though do we get a snag when are presented with Japanese, Koreans, Chinese * ?
(*Specific provinces of china)

I don't think so, because IQ is not be all and end all of great culture and civilization. Hypocritically though, the multi-cults will use IQ stats against our cause (saying we aren’t smartest), and yet condemn us if we use the same IQ stats when we say others like Black Africans are borderline-retarded.

[bpesta22]

I don't think it's odd if you have good reason to do so. However, if you're presented with solid data to support the contention of one race being, on average, more intelligent (or as having higher scores on intelligence tests), than another, then simply discounting the argument as racism is ignorance.

As for your previous comments, I have appreciated your insight and obviously superior knowledge on this topic. I never intended to present myself as an expert, and my comments were based only on what I read in the press release, which I stated very early on. I did not see the link to the two-page article, but I also did not actively seek out the article either which, I admit, I should have.


Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

[bpesta22]

I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Just to show that it's possible to simultaneously a.) be a racist; and b.) believe that (some) Asians are smarter than whites based on IQ tests, here's a link to a post on Stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1619402&postcount=1

Points taken.

I guess I'm interested in what the science says versus how some nazi interprets what he thinks the sciencs says.

[Katana]

Katana-- thanks. I didn't have you in mind for signaling out.

I think the we are entitled to our opinions but not our facts idea should hold here. We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area (accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong) before our opinions hold any weight.

Agreed.

[Yahzi]

Jesus Christ Yahzi,
Oooh, I've been promoted.

it cannot be the case that your arm chair cleverness invalidates what the science here is doing.
It cannot be the case that you think the nonsense you have presented is actual science.

Just look at it:

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in
A non-IQ test on a small sample size. You think that counts?

Show me where they adminster an actual IQ test to children who could not speak English.

But no, toss a few tests of any kind at a small sample, and just extrapolate the results. "We know what they would test as because we know the test is right. And how do we know the test is right? Because it says what they would test as!"

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
Cranial volume?

You report this as if it had any relation to IQ at all?

You cite phrenology, and yet you wonder why everybody laughs at you.

adopted... adopted... adopted
I can make up a thousand reasons why an adopted child of a different race might have incentive to test differently. Has your research attempted to rule out any of them - other than by divine fiat, I mean.

also on 60 life-history variables that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.
And of course, culture has nothing to do with these variables.

Why, indeed, the last variable asserts that culture is a product of racial, genetic IQ!

In all honesty: how can you look at this and not see the presumption of racism?

For those still interested, here is how they define race:
Why, look, folks, it's the good old social theory of race.

And people kept telling me such simplistic racist nonsense was dead.

Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.
Only on "almost all?"

Gotta leave room for our ubermensch race, of course.

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.
You cite penis-measuring idiots and you think I am doing a disservice?

Listen, if you wanted to have an actual conversation, you had your chance. But you simply ignored my gorilla example every time I presented it, finally admitting you weren't paying attention. And now you quote your heroes, also busy ignoring it. You assert that these brilliant fellows have considered every angle, even while you admit they are wholly ignorant of basic biological research.

And in the beginning, you pretended you weren't a racist, that you did not endorse the racist claim that White people are genetically superior to Black people. Yet every fact you cite, every conclusion you endorse, leads back to this. Why did you feel the need to hide your racism? Why do you think your being dishonest about your position is not a disservice to rational inquiry?

[Yahzi]

We should at least know what the purported facts are in this area
How about the fact that male gorillas can delay the onset of puberty (and the consequent doubling of their weight) for up to nine years based solely on social cues?

Do you think that fact has any bearing whatsoever on how social cues could affect human development?

Would you like to explain how you know that such biological effects do not occur in human beings? As I recall, your previous response was to simply dismiss it as ludicrous, out of hand.

Do you think this qualifies as:
(accept them, or refute them with logic, if you think they're wrong)

[bpesta22]

Again Yahzi, how about reading the article. The across country research they talk about is on people who speak whatever language the country speaks, and the test was developed by people in the same culture as the test taker.

Calling a sample size of 1000 small just illustrates you are wholly ignorant of anything relevant to this area.

[bpesta22]

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

[Dave1001]

From R&J:

Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106

*Lynn and his colleagues carried out a series of reaction time studies on over 1,000 nine-year-old East Asian children in ****Japan and Hong Kong,**** White children in Britain and Ireland, and Black children in South Africa (summarized by Lynn & Vanhannen, 2002, pp. 66–67). The Progressive Matrices were given as a
nonverbal test of intelligence, along with the simple, choice, and odd-man-out
tasks.

*The most extensive study of race differences in endocranial volume to date measured 20,000 skulls ***from around the world*** and reported East Asians,Europeans, and Africans had average cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268
cm3, respectively (Beals, Smith, & Dodd, 1984).

*Three studies of East Asian children adopted by White families support the hereditarian hypothesis. In the first, 25 four-year-olds from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, and Thailand, all adopted into White American homes prior to 3 yearsof age, excelled in academic ability with a mean IQ score of 120, compared with the U.S. norm of 100 (Clark & Hanisee, 1982). Prior to placement, half of the babies had required hospitalization for malnutrition...

..141 Korean children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of age

...A study by...examined 19 Korean infants adopted by families in Belgium.

*Not just in the United States but around the world, East Asians and Blacks fall at the two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate, not only on mean cognitive test scores and brain size measures but also on 60 life-history variables
that provide measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization.

*Moreover, the three-way pattern of mean Black–White–East Asian group differences occurs worldwide on culture-fair reaction time measures, which all children can do in less than 1 s

*Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White homes, even though as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, nonetheless grew to have IQs 10 or more points
higher than their adoptive national norms.

*************

The studies on black IQ (versus asian) are much more common. Look through the reference section of the article to see how many of these studies were done globally-- in africa-- versus just for races within the USA.


For those still interested, here is how they define race:

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximumlikelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.

Yahzi, you do a dis-service to anyone seriously trying to form an unbiased view of what the science reveals in this area.

Fascinating. Where do Latinos fit into this? Indians from India? Middle Easterners?

[andyandy]

And calling cranial capacity comparisons as they relate to IQ prhrenology is yet another yahzi strawman. Should I cite the recent meta-analysis on brain size and IQ?

does it conclude that both H sap sapiens (100,000-c.30,000 years ago) and H neanderthals (c. cultural explosion) had a higher IQ than modern day H sap sapiens?

:)

[andyandy]

A non-IQ test on a small sample size. You think that counts?

Show me where they adminster an actual IQ test to children who could not speak English.

But no, toss a few tests of any kind at a small sample, and just extrapolate the results. "We know what they would test as because we know the test is right. And how do we know the test is right? Because it says what they would test as!"



1000 is the magic number for sample sizes based on a normal distribution.....where you can be 95% confident that the results will be +/- 3 %
hence the reason it's used for polling purposes, and for a lot of surveys....

it's not sufficient to dismiss it as a "small sample" - unless perhaps you don't believe reaction times are normally distributed.....

[Steven Howard]

it's not sufficient to dismiss it as a "small sample" - unless perhaps you don't believe reaction times are normally distributed.....

Can we assume a priori that they are?

[Dave1001]

does it conclude that both H sap sapiens (100,000-c.30,000 years ago) and H neanderthals (c. cultural explosion) had a higher IQ than modern day H sap sapiens?

:)

Isn't that an ad absurdum argumentative question, kind of like if bpesta asked you if you conclude that the difference between abstract reasoning in bonobos and humans is cultural?

[bpesta22]

I agree, just the mention that brain size correlates with IQ sounds stupid and junk scientish.

Then, when one reads the actual peer-reviewed article wherein the findings are discussed, the rationale provided (why and what it means) it no longer seems like junk science (In fact, I have a pub with the guy who did the meta-analysis I was referencing--though ours is not on IQ).

Indeed, that's my main motivation for posting so much and so fiercely as the defender of IQ tests.

The contrast between what the science reveals (i.e., peer reviewed journal articles), and what most intelligent educated people /skeptics know and think about the science, is vast.

This annoys me, as merely reading the actual science-- something anyone can do-- paints a vastly different picture.

I dunno, maybe I underestimate how difficult it is for non-psychologists to understand this stuff.

A sample size of 1000 might be needed for a pollster worried about how 300 million people in america might vote. That N size is vast overkill in a scientific experiment where one can introduce control; repeated measures variables, multiple measures, many trials, etc.

I bet the inspection time differences would emerge as significant with just 30 per group.

At any rate, sample size issues are NOT the same for people doing polling versus people trying to demonstrate an effect in a controlled experiment.

I can forgive Yahzi for not knowing this. I can't forgive him for thinking it's a valid criticism (using only an N of 1000!) for the research I cited. Nor can I forgive him for complaining about sample size being too small when one gets significant results (sample size issues relate to statistical power and type ii errors, which are irrelevant when one finds an effect-- obviously, the sample size was big enough, given significant results).

I've got 10 years of teaching experience. I've answered tons of questions from students. I can tell based on the question whether the student is really grasping the whole lecture or missing the point entirely. IMO-- perhaps I am wrong-- Yahzi just don't understand the science (independent of whether it's right or wrong).

[Jeff Corey]

But these are correlational studies. By definition, you can't "introduce control" in a study with no true independent variable.
As you know, in a real experiment, the scientist manipulates an independent variable to see if it changes the dependent variable. This other crap is mere correlational masturbation with the third variable problem as the two ton gorilla lurking in the corner, with Hammy and a few other prehominids.

[Yahzi]

I agree, just the mention that brain size correlates with IQ sounds stupid and junk scientish.
Because it is.

The contrast between what the science reveals (i.e., peer reviewed journal articles), and what most intelligent educated people /skeptics know and think about the science, is vast.
And yet you are absolutely cluless about the effects of social cues in primates.

This annoys me, as merely reading the actual science-- something anyone can do-- paints a vastly different picture.
And it offends me to see people present black/white IQ scores from the Army in 1917 with a straight face. Do you honestly think there was no bias in the measurement or collection of that data? Just how naive can you pretend to be?

I dunno, maybe I underestimate how difficult it is for non-psychologists to understand this stuff.
The only thing hard to understand is how you can pretend you're doing science when you ignore every fact I bring up.

A sample size of 1000 might be needed for a pollster worried about how 300 million people in america might vote. That N size is vast overkill in a scientific experiment where one can introduce control; repeated measures variables, multiple measures, many trials, etc.
1. 1,000 is the absolute smallest sample size you have presented yet. Even your 1917 data is 23,000. When I asked you for an example of Asian testing on actual Asians, this was the best you could do.

2. You still have not demonstrated any IQ tests applied to non-English speaking people. Even while you freely assert what those tests will show.

I can forgive Yahzi for not knowing this.
You don't need to. I know it.

I can't forgive him for thinking it's a valid criticism (using only an N of 1000!) for the research I cited.
See above, for why your small sample size matters. That you could only mention one study, of such a small size, while you natter on about hundreds of studies dating back to 1917 with tens of thousands of subjects... do you begin to see the point here?

No, of course not.

But please, answer this question: what is the sample size of non-English speaking Asians who have taken IQ tests? (Not reaction tests, but actual IQ tests - you know, the test that measures the number you have assigned to the Asian population).

Why... it's zero.

Is that small enough for you?

I can tell based on the question whether the student is really grasping the whole lecture or missing the point entirely.
Then why do you avoid so many of my questions?

IMO-- perhaps I am wrong-- Yahzi just don't understand the science (independent of whether it's right or wrong).
This from the guy who suggested that if the courts allow it, it must be true.

This from the guy who thinks it's plausible to measure psychometric data to 3 digits of precision over 20 years. No, that data wasn't faked; Old Burt just got it right the first time!

This from the guy who dismissed the gorilla example of social cues affecting physical development because he found it "inane."

You're just a beacon of science, you are.

You do realize, don't you, that you have never actually responded to the gorilla example? That you have dismissed it every time I have brought it up, but have never actually said why it cannot matter. You have expressed your personal incredulity that nuerological development can be culturally influenced; and when faced with observations in other primates that show it to be true, have simply dismissed the data.

Why can't you explain what startling logic allows you to observe massive biological effects from culture in primates, but dismiss it out of hand in humans?

Why can't you explain how psychometric testing is as accurate 100 years ago as it today, even while the definition of what was being measured has completely changed? (Remember how you started off spouting on about "G" instead of IQ?) Are you honestly asserting that IQ tests are so easy to create that you can make one even when you don't know what it is you are measuring? (In which case... where are all those Oriental IQ tests?)

Why can't you see that your IQ field is riddled with bad assumptions, racist motivations, spurious data, lousy methodology, and inadequate definitions?

Well, the obvious answer is: because it tells you what want to hear.

Theology.

[Yahzi]

it's not sufficient to dismiss it as a "small sample"
It's only small in the context of all the other studies he mentions.

My point being that the people who do IQ studies have no problem assigning an IQ score to half the planet because they tested 1000 kids with a reaction test that they think they can correlate to an IQ test.

Is there a scientific term for "hearsay?"

[andyandy]

Isn't that an ad absurdum argumentative question, kind of like if bpesta asked you if you conclude that the difference between abstract reasoning in bonobos and humans is cultural?

it was a slightly facetious post hence the smilie.....

nevertheless if one is going to make a case for a correlation between IQ and cranial size (and implied brain size) it would indeed be relevant to examine anthroplogical evidence

there have been two significant spurts of brain enlargement -

1) the first 2.0-1.5 million years ago, around the crossover of Australopithecus, homo habilus and homo erectus.....

2) the second about 500,000-200,000 years ago with homo erectus and neanderthal....

the first spurt (1) is tentatively attributed to toolmaking - but archaeologists can find no major change in the archaeological record correlating with the second period of brain expansion (2)....as the same hunter-gatherer lifestyle with limited tools was maintained....

so there is no strong relationship between brain size expansion and the known changes in homo behavior - and as such there's no simple relationship between brain size and "intelligence" (if that is what people who measure IQ wish to demonstrate)

[andyandy]

Can we assume a priori that they are?

no....:)

having thought about it (and looked up a couple of sites :) ), they will be skewed to the right - however they still appear to give a rough normal distribution approximation....(especially if one looks to eliminate outliers)

http://ecl.ucsd.edu/Ratcliff_1993.pdf (graph p3)

[andyandy]

At any rate, sample size issues are NOT the same for people doing polling versus people trying to demonstrate an effect in a controlled experiment.

sure - the underlying point is that it's significance rather than n that one should look at.....

[Dancing David]

it's not sufficient to dismiss it as a "small sample" - unless perhaps you don't believe reaction times are normally distributed.....

That is a question of how the sample was gathered more than anything. Was it randomly generated from as large a pool as possible, or was it chosen for an ability to be sampled more easily. It is then still a strech, but a better one to say that a trait is randomly distributed. First the sample must be randomly distributed.

[Dancing David]

But these are correlational studies. By definition, you can't "introduce control" in a study with no true independent variable.
As you know, in a real experiment, the scientist manipulates an independent variable to see if it changes the dependent variable. This other crap is mere correlational masturbation with the third variable problem as the two ton gorilla lurking in the corner, with Hammy and a few other prehominids.


Interesting, I think the 'control' in this case would be the sample distribution.

In the case at hand the independant variable is allegedly the racial origins of the humans, and the dependant variable is the IQ.

Correlational masturbation, a great term, does it become correlational intercourse when the correlation is above 68%?

[bpesta22]

Interesting, I think the 'control' in this case would be the sample distribution.

In the case at hand the independant variable is allegedly the racial origins of the humans, and the dependant variable is the IQ.

Correlational masturbation, a great term, does it become correlational intercourse when the correlation is above 68%?

But in an inspection time task, the correlational stuff is the subject's demographic characteristics (race, age, gender, etc).

Obviously, one can't randomly assign people into the black or white groups, so indeed causal inferences are iffy.

This applies to a solid majority of experiments within social science. Things like gender, age, political party, education level, etc. are worthy of study even if we can't use them as randomly assigned IV's.

For example, any study showing that teachers treat girls who raise their hands differently from boys who raise their hand would suffer the same problem (one couldn't claim that student gender caused the difference in teacher behavior, as the kids weren't randomly assigned to be boys or girls). Should we not study this important area because any significant results would be correlational masturbation?

What about the correlation between obesity and heart disease? Is that masturbation? I can't imagine a study where people are randomly assigned to be obese or normal-weight, and then followed around to see who gets heart disease.

So, if you define good science as only those experiments which use random assignment, thus allowing causal inferences, you'd be throwing out many babies from the correlational bathwater.

***

My point was that n = 30 per group would likely give enough statistical power to show a difference on inspection time. Certainly, n =1000 is overkill (if you're just interested in showing the difference, given diminishing marginal returns that n size gives to stat power). If you'd like, I can do the calculations that plug in n size and effect size to determine how many subjects one needs to reject the null (across whatever power levels you think are appropriate).

30 per group is good enough because of the controls and standardization of the inspection time task (e.g., not one trial but many; using a staircase method to hone in on the shortest exposure time that still results in accuarate performance, etc.).

[bpesta22]

It's only small in the context of all the other studies he mentions.

My point being that the people who do IQ studies have no problem assigning an IQ score to half the planet because they tested 1000 kids with a reaction test that they think they can correlate to an IQ test.

Is there a scientific term for "hearsay?"


Yahzi if you'd actually read even the small section I quoted (versus the whole article) you'd see that the reaction time studies included the raven's matrices-- an untimed, widely used IQ test, and perhaps the single best measure of g in existence.

Another example of a smug but invalid criticism on your part, resulting simply from not reading what's before you. Whatever "truth" is about IQ, it's clear that the study I referenced-- and you dismissed-- indeed used a real IQ test (together with the RT tasks).

[Dave1001]

How could one study white vs. black IQ difference and not look at biracial people who are white+black in their analysis? Has this been done?

[Dancing David]

But in an inspection time task, the correlational stuff is the subject's demographic characteristics (race, age, gender, etc).

Obviously, one can't randomly assign people into the black or white groups, so indeed causal inferences are iffy.

I think we are in agreement in all this.

This applies to a solid majority of experiments within social science. Things like gender, age, political party, education level, etc. are worthy of study even if we can't use them as randomly assigned IV's.

I agree, but I should have said 'something like the independant variable'.


For example, any study showing that teachers treat girls who raise their hands differently from boys who raise their hand would suffer the same problem (one couldn't claim that student gender caused the difference in teacher behavior, as the kids weren't randomly assigned to be boys or girls). Should we not study this important area because any significant results would be correlational masturbation?

My point was that the level of coorelation is imporatant (IE coorelational intercousre), some coorelations are more significant than others.


What about the correlation between obesity and heart disease? Is that masturbation? I can't imagine a study where people are randomly assigned to be obese or normal-weight, and then followed around to see who gets heart disease.

I was not the one making the random assignment claim, Tthat is why i said that matching demographics is about the closest you can come to control


So, if you define good science as only those experiments which use random assignment, thus allowing causal inferences, you'd be throwing out many babies from the correlational bathwater.

T'weren't me that said it. i am saying that there is a level where coorelation (68% or thereabouts) means more.

***

My point was that n = 30 per group would likely give enough statistical power to show a difference on inspection time. Certainly, n =1000 is overkill (if you're just interested in showing the difference, given diminishing marginal returns that n size gives to stat power). If you'd like, I can do the calculations that plug in n size and effect size to determine how many subjects one needs to reject the null (across whatever power levels you think are appropriate).

Assuming that it is a representative sample and that it is a large enough portion of the larger group.


30 per group is good enough because of the controls and standardization of the inspection time task (e.g., not one trial but many; using a staircase method to hone in on the shortest exposure time that still results in accuarate performance, etc.).

[Dancing David]

How could one study white vs. black IQ difference and not look at biracial people who are white+black in their analysis? Has this been done?


Good point and how do you figure the 'high yellow' or pale skinned people, especialy since the indigenous people to southern africa are 'caucasian' in morphology but not in descent.

Where does asia begin, Turkey?

[Dave1001]

Good point and how do you figure the 'high yellow' or pale skinned people, especialy since the indigenous people to southern africa are 'caucasian' in morphology but not in descent.

Where does asia begin, Turkey?

The study of genetic markers for subpopulation and admixture has been going on long enough that I think IQ researchers must have been able to start using these instead of racial self-identification or morphology. Anyone have links to any studies that do this?

[hammegk]

But these are correlational studies. By definition, you can't "introduce control" in a study with no true independent variable.
As you know, in a real experiment, the scientist manipulates an independent variable to see if it changes the dependent variable. This other crap is mere correlational masturbation with the third variable problem as the two ton gorilla lurking in the corner, with Hammy and a few other prehominids.
Darn behavorists. The strangest crap comes spewing out at random.

Stick it in one ear & pull it out the other; clean out those cobwebs in the empty space.

[Jekyll]

How could one study white vs. black IQ difference and not look at biracial people who are white+black in their analysis? Has this been done?

Yes, one of the studies found a 9 point drop from mixed race(black/white) couples with a white mother compared to those mixed race couples with a black mother.

The study of genetic markers for subpopulation and admixture has been going on long enough that I think IQ researchers must have been able to start using these instead of racial self-identification or morphology. Anyone have links to any studies that do this?
Yup, they find IQ correlates much more strongly to skin colour than genetics.
Nisbett (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cluster=1030963917294556726) goes over both of these points in his rebuttal of the paper Bpesta is defending. You can track down citations for all of the papers from there.

[Dave1001]

Yes, one of the studies found a 9 point drop from mixed race(black/white) couples with a white mother compared to those mixed race couples with a black mother.


Do you have a link to this study? and can you explain this a little more? What does "a 9 point drop from mixed race(black/white) couples with a white mother compared to those mixed race couples with a black mother." mean? And how do you know so much about this field?




Yup, they find IQ correlates much more strongly to skin colour than genetics.
Nisbett (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cluster=1030963917294556726) goes over both of these points in his rebuttal of the paper Bpesta is defending. You can track down citations for all of the papers from there.

Now that is absolutely fascinating. What are critical responses to this study?

[Jekyll]

Do you have a link to this study? and can you explain this a little more? What does "a 9 point drop from mixed race(black/white) couples with a white mother compared to those mixed race couples with a black mother." mean? And how do you know so much about this field?

Honestly, I know bugger all about the field. I've read a mismeasure of man, some of the threads on this here, half the study bpesta's on about and a couple of critical reviews of it.

Think of mixed race black/white couples with children. If the mother is white, on average the child will have 9 more IQ points than if the mother is black.

The nice thing about study is that it controls for genetic influence (unless the genes for IQ are on the X chromosome) and measures the importance of the mother's culture on the child.

Now that is absolutely fascinating. What are critical responses to this study?

I have no idea, there are several studies dating back to the 70's showing similar results referenced in that paper I mentioned earlier.
Feel free to hunt down responses to them and let us know how it turns out ;) .

[Yahzi]

an untimed, widely used IQ test, and perhaps the single best measure of g in existence.
The best measure of g in existence... and yet, it give exactly the same results as IQ tests applied in 1917.

What does best mean, if it's no different?

How can you point to the unchanging results from 100 years ago while simultaneously arguing that the current results are better?

Another example of a smug but invalid criticism on your part
I have offered many criticisms. You have responded to the easy ones.

"Smug" is perhaps not the right word.

[Yahzi]

Yup, they find IQ correlates much more strongly to skin colour than genetics.
That would seem to suggest that cultural expectations play a significant role.

[Dave1001]

That would seem to suggest that cultural expectations play a significant role.

Or less intuitively (except for afrocentrists, in a case of tragic irony) it could suggest that melanin does indeed have an impact on intelligence.*


*Of course this is probably a much less likely explanation.

[Dave1001]

Honestly, I know bugger all about the field. I've read a mismeasure of man, some of the threads on this here, half the study bpesta's on about and a couple of critical reviews of it.

Think of mixed race black/white couples with children. If the mother is white, on average the child will have 9 more IQ points than if the mother is black.

The nice thing about study is that it controls for genetic influence (unless the genes for IQ are on the X chromosome) and measures the importance of the mother's culture on the child.



I have no idea, there are several studies dating back to the 70's showing similar results referenced in that paper I mentioned earlier.
Feel free to hunt down responses to them and let us know how it turns out ;) .

I'd really like a link to the biracial & white vs. black mothers study if anyone has it.

[bpesta22]

Honestly, I know bugger all about the field. I've read a mismeasure of man, some of the threads on this here, half the study bpesta's on about and a couple of critical reviews of it.

Think of mixed race black/white couples with children. If the mother is white, on average the child will have 9 more IQ points than if the mother is black.

The nice thing about study is that it controls for genetic influence (unless the genes for IQ are on the X chromosome) and measures the importance of the mother's culture on the child.



I haven't read the Nisbett study yet-- A white mother / black father pairing results in 9 more IQ points, on average, than does a black mother / white father pairing?

Am I getting that right from your summary?

If so, is Nisbett arguing that white mothers are more nurturing (or in better environments, on average) than are black mothers?

The race of the husband is confounded with race of the mother. Could nisbett argue having a white father results in a 9 point decrease in IQ???

Guess I gots more reading to do...

[Dave1001]

I haven't read the Nisbett study yet-- A white mother / black father pairing results in 9 more IQ points, on average, than does a black mother / white father pairing?

Am I getting that right from your summary?

If so, is Nisbett arguing that white mothers are more nurturing (or in better environments, on average) than are black mothers?

The race of the husband is confounded with race of the mother. Could nisbett argue having a white father results in a 9 point decrease in IQ???

Guess I gots more reading to do...

It could be, but I think even a purely genetic explanation for this particular difference could also possibly be viable, such as mtDNA is a responsible for a large share of the difference in the black/white IQ performance gap.

[bpesta22]

I'd really like a link to the biracial & white vs. black mothers study if anyone has it.

This is from Rushton and Jensen (2005).

It also addresses a little bit the admixture issue versus using "the old social theory of race".



In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, the IQs of the mixed-race
(Black/White) adoptees averaged between those of the “nonmixed” White and the
“nonmixed” Black adoptees, as expected under a genetic hypothesis (see Table 2).
Results from some other types of studies are also consistent with that hypothesis.
In her review, Shuey (1966) found that in 16 of 18 studies in which skin color
could be used as a proxy for amount of admixture, Blacks with lighter skin color
averaged higher scores than those with darker skin, although the magnitude of the
association was quite low (r
.10). The Black American average IQ of 85 (15
points higher than the sub-Saharan African average of 70; see Section 3) is also
consistent with the genetic hypothesis, given the approximately 20% White
admixture of Black Americans (Chakraborty, Kamboh, Nwankwo, & Ferrell,
1992; Parra et al., 1998). The mixed-race “Colored” population of South Africa
also has an average IQ of 85, intermediate to the respective African and White
means of 70 and 100 (Owen, 1992). Early studies of brain weight data also fit with
the genetic hypothesis. Bean (1906) found, as did Pearl (1934), that the greater the
amount of White admixture (judged independently from skin color), the higher the
mean brain weight at autopsy in Black groups. More recent data of this nature are
not available.

***

Although the studies of racial hybrids are generally consistent with the genetic
hypothesis, to date they are not conclusive. It may be true, for example, that
lighter skinned Cape Coloreds and African Americans have better nutrition, have
greater opportunities for learning, or are treated better by their societies. On the
other hand, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (Table 2) held many such
factors constant and removed the most frequently proposed causal agents such as
poverty, malnutrition, poor schools, and dysfunctional neighborhoods. Yet, here
too, the mixed-race children had a higher mean IQ than did the children of two
Black parents, and the means for each group were very similar to those for their
respective counterparts elsewhere in the United States. The discussion in this
section is particularly supportive of Loehlin’s (2000) conclusion that “Research
using larger samples and better techniques for estimating ancestry is called for and
quite feasible” (p. 188).

[Ben Tilly]

Yes, one of the studies found a 9 point drop from mixed race(black/white) couples with a white mother compared to those mixed race couples with a black mother.

Interesting, but not particularly astonishing.

Not long ago my wife mentioned a recent study that found that children's IQ is more strongly tied to the IQ of the mother than the father. Therefore if whites have a higher average IQ than blacks, then cross-racial couples with a white mother would be expected to have higher IQ children than cross-racial couples with a black mother.

I don't know what causes are suspected for this correlation. An obvious candidate is that the mother is more likely to be the primary caregiver, and therefore has a bigger impact on the child's environment. But I do not know whether research has happened into this.

Cheers,
Ben

[Jekyll]

I haven't read the Nisbett study yet-- A white mother / black father pairing results in 9 more IQ points, on average, than does a black mother / white father pairing?

Am I getting that right from your summary?

If so, is Nisbett arguing that white mothers are more nurturing (or in better environments, on average) than are black mothers?

Yes,yes, and yes.*
He's citing "Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: performance in infancy and at 4 years." by Willerman L,Naylor AF, and Myrianthopoulos NC(1974). I don't have pubmed access so I probably won't be reading it.


The race of the husband is confounded with race of the mother. Could nisbett argue having a white father results in a 9 point decrease in IQ???

No, you're not comparing like with like.
You'd have to compare white mother/black father with white mother/white father or black mother/black father with black mother/white father to show a white father => IQ drop.

*Well, better at bring up children so that they respond well to IQ tests rather than more nurturing.

[Dave1001]

This is from Rushton and Jensen (2005).

It also addresses a little bit the admixture issue versus using "the old social theory of race".
)


Interesting, but seems rather primitive given the resources (such as genetic admixture testing) that we had available by 2005. Also, I'm bpesta, are you having trouble tracking down that white mother vs. black mother of mixed race child study? I'd think it would be useful to you for your work -I'm starting to doubt its existence because I don't think anybody has published an actual link to the study or a citation of it.

[bpesta22]

Interesting, but seems rather primitive given the resources (such as genetic admixture testing) that we had available by 2005. Also, I'm bpesta, are you having trouble tracking down that white mother vs. black mother of mixed race child study? I'd think it would be useful to you for your work -I'm starting to doubt its existence because I don't think anybody has published an actual link to the study or a citation of it.

I haven't been looking for it-- did you ask me to find it?

[andyandy]

Interesting, but seems rather primitive given the resources (such as genetic admixture testing) that we had available by 2005. Also, I'm bpesta, are you having trouble tracking down that white mother vs. black mother of mixed race child study? I'd think it would be useful to you for your work -I'm starting to doubt its existence because I don't think anybody has published an actual link to the study or a citation of it.

It's referred to in The Black-White Test Score Gap......

"The Black-White Test Score Gap" published
in 1998. This book includes a chapter by Richard Nisbett, one of the most
prominent psychologists of our time with a reputation for methodological
sophistication, who reviews the evidence for the relations between "Race,
Genetics and IQ." I will provide an extensive quote from the
final section of his chapter (pp. 100-101:>>


Richard E. Nisbett is quoted thus:


<<"The studies most directly relevant to the question of whether the IQ
difference between blacks and whites is genetic in origin show no association
between IQ and African, as opposed to European, ancestry. A few older studies
of skin color are consistent with European superiority, but most are not. The
best modern study shown no relationship between IQ and European ancestry as
defined by blood group factors, but indicating that although there is a weak
relationship between skin color and IQ, this has nothing to do with European
ancestry. One other modern study of blood types also suggests that there is no
genetic difference in IQ between the races, while the other weakly suggest
African superiority. Studies of the children of black as against white GI
fathers in Germany and of the European heritage of black children in Chicago
show no advantage of European over African genes. a study of mixed-race
children shows that those with white mothers and black fathers have much
higher
IQs than those with black mothers and white fathers.... The evidence thus
indicates that if there are genetically determined IQ differences between the
races, they are too small to show with any regularity in studies covering a
wide range of populations and using a wide range of methodologies. This is an
extraordinary important conclusion.">>

Maybe you could ask for the book for Christmas..... :)

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/blckwhit.htm

[Dave1001]

It's referred to in The Black-White Test Score Gap......



Maybe you could ask for the book for Christmas..... :)

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/blckwhit.htm

Very interesting. So according to Nesbitt (1998) "a study of mixed-race
children shows that those with white mothers and black fathers have much
higher IQs than those with black mothers and white fathers".

AndyAndy, can you provide more direct information about this particular study? Such as a link to it or at least the author of it? I'll poke around for it on my own, but if anyone else knows please share.

[Jekyll]

He's citing "Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: performance in infancy and at 4 years." by Willerman L,Naylor AF, and Myrianthopoulos NC(1974). I don't have pubmed access so I probably won't be reading it.



V
AndyAndy, can you provide more direct information about this particular study? Such as a link to it or at least the author of it? I'll poke around for it on my own, but if anyone else knows please share.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&cluster=2209873175706797063

[Dave1001]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&cluster=2209873175706797063

Thanks. Wow, 1974 is the date of publication. One would think research results this interesting would be followed up on. There must be more recent results confirming or contradicting this particular study?

[andyandy]

Very interesting. So according to Nesbitt (1998) "a study of mixed-race
children shows that those with white mothers and black fathers have much
higher IQs than those with black mothers and white fathers".

AndyAndy, can you provide more direct information about this particular study? Such as a link to it or at least the author of it? I'll poke around for it on my own, but if anyone else knows please share.

This is a pdf of nisbitt on "race, genetics and IQ"

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

In in he references the study as "willerman et al. 1974" (p7 of pdf)

[andyandy]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&cluster=2209873175706797063

damn your quick fingers! :)

[Jekyll]

damn your quick fingers! :)

I have magic kungfu powers :p.

[bpesta22]

This is a pdf of nisbitt on "race, genetics and IQ"

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

In in he references the study as "willerman et al. 1974" (p7 of pdf)


Odd-- it's almost like a rough draft (he has notes to himself in it).

I wonder if he meant to post that, or if the complete version is somewhere...

[andyandy]

Odd-- it's almost like a rough draft (he has notes to himself in it).

I wonder if he meant to post that, or if the complete version is somewhere...

yes...i liked the [more more more] bracket :)