|
|
Home |
 |
|---|
The following quotes my discussion of the book, "The Bell
Curve" by Murray and Herrenstein in a forum I belong to. It may occassionally
appear disjointed, since the remarks of others that I am occassionally
replying to have been deleted. Still, I think it still makes sense
and presents the subject fairly clearly.
It is worth noting, however, that differences in average iq
are essentially meaningless in everyday life.
Gorilla's have been measured with iq's of 80. Average human is
100.
Mensa requires around 130 for membership. At least that's the
way I
understand it.
Culture the ability to acquire culture from recorded knowledge,
education, learned perception of the world are very important
determinants in the effective intelligence and measured intelligence
of
a being.
It is probable that the differences in average measured intelligence
in
any two groups of people created by cultural and educational differences
is equal to or greater than the differences in average measured
intelligence created by genetic differences.
More, the differences between a really intelligent member of one group
and an average member of that group is bound to be several times the
difference between average members of the two groups. For a really
intelligent person, average members of both groups appear about the
same
level of intelligence, and a really intelligent member of the other
group is closer to being his equal than an average member of his own
group.
This applies equally to evaluating persons for jobs, etc. The
point
being that the differences in intelligence within any cultural or ethnic
group are so much greater than the differences between average
intelligence of the two groups that the differences in average
intelligence are essentially meaningless for all practical purposes
in
day to day life, regardless of whether caused by nature or nurture.
Executives who choose people at random for a given task are poor excuses
for executives. Employers who chose persons at random for a given
job
are stupid employers. The overlap in any 'ethnic' two groups
of the
human species is great enough to make choosing one over the other on
the
basis of average iq test scores for the groups the equivalent of rolling
dice, stupid and self
destructive.
You have to look at each individual on the basis of their track record,
education, prior experience, etc. Failure to do this, judging
on a
minor average difference that is wrong 30 or 40% of the time is stupid.
This makes the average difference between the two groups useless and
meaningless for making decisions in day to day life.
However, it is worth noting that people tend to be what is expected
of
them. Negative expectations tend to inhibit talent and ability,
positive expectations tend to enable them.
It's been a few years, but I have read of studies demonstrating this
effect in the classroom, where teachers were told this child would
be
brighter, or that one would not, and the results followed the prediction
due to the power of expectations.
So, bias, by effecting expectation, will effect a negative result in
child development.
This is one of the dangers of books like The Bell Curve. People
may
begin to expect one ethnic group to perform poorly, having negative
expectations for those members of that ethnic group who are above
average in intelligence as well as others.
This is why it is necessary to emphasize that the information is
basically useless in evaluating individuals. You have to take
each
individual as an individual, and look at his or her individual talent.
A book can be well written, unbiased, and
completely fair without any hint of support for racism, and still be
used as a prop for racist dogma.
Well, I am reading the book, and have not yet gotten to the last
chapter. Though I skimmed it before writing this letter.
The authors
recommendations seem to tally fairly well with the views that I have
advanced at my website concerning marriage, meaningful work, etc.The
authors are also quite clear that while the measured difference in
iq
exists between blacks and whites, it is meaningless in evaluating
individuals.
There is also a fair amount of evidence in the book that a portion of
the measured difference is environmental and that while some of that
difference, blacks have gained around 3 iq points on average, has been
corrected, more may be possible. The average difference being
15
points, a gain of three points is substantial. A gain of six
points,
that normally gained adoption into a better household, (complete change
of environment) really decreases the measured difference.
Overall, I find the book to be a decent piece of work. As the
authors
point out, rumors about this subject abound. A well documented
scholarly work which is written to be easily accessible can help to
correct rumors by showing that the issue is not really important in
daily life.
The Bell Curve is a very good book, full of interesting data that is
relevant to many questions confronting society today. It presents
the
evidence of the heritibility of intelligence and a real measured
difference in intelligence between blacks and whites fairly and
convincingly.
After reading other sources mentioned later in this paper,
I have to change this
opinion. The Bell Curve practices brinkmanship
and fails to prove anything while
asserting that reasonable people will accept the opinions
of the authors. It cannot
be considered fair or unbiased.
I basically believe in the heritability of intelligence. However,
I am
going to challenge one of the most convincing, to me, pieces of evidence
that the disparity between black and white intelligence is real, because
it can be done, and because I think it is worth thinking about.
One of the tests of intelligence is based on the interesting assumption
that the g factor or general intelligence factor correlates highly
with
speed of reflexes. It was shown that the scores of blacks and
whites
differed in proportion on a test that tested speed of reflexes to the
about the same degree that their intelligence tests differed.
Whites scored higher on reflex speed, blacks scored higher on muscular
speed. I.E. whites reached the right answer more rapidly, blacks
could
move faster.
In combat, hunting, and other crisis scenarios, this is a balanced
equation, neither white or black is superior to the other in the real
world. One will react mentally to a situation a little more rapidly,
then move more slowly to do what is necessary. The other will
react
mentally to the same situation, then move more rapidly to do what is
necessary. When pulling a gun, dodging an attack, etc.
this balances
out to about the same reflex time. One is not inferior or superior
to
the other in evolutionary terms, evolution has just taken a slightly
different path in giving each approximately the same abilities.
Both reach the right answer, and react to it in a timely manner.
In a
combat team, especially infantry where physical speed is vital.
Both
are equal and different. In one situation the faster reaction
time
might be vital to survival, in another situation the faster physical
movement might be the difference between life and death not just for
an
individual but for the entire team.
Thus, both are equal for all practical purposes, and a mixed team, with
both white and black members is superior to a pure team all white or
all
black, because the mixed team has persons capable of the optimum
survival reaction in all situations.
So, is intelligence properly equated with speed? Or is intelligence
properly a measure of how well you get the right answer, within a
reasonable period of time.
If speed and intelligence are the same, then the results of the tests
mentioned above are valid. If getting the right answer in a reasonable
period of time is measured instead, then the results of the above tests
are invalid.
If a person processes problems slower, but gets the right answers as
frequently or more frequently than someone who processes faster, is
he
less intelligent, as intelligent, or more intelligent than the faster
thinker?
Time is not a big factor in intelligence tests for me. I normally
finish a test in half the time allotted. However, additional
time makes
no difference in my score. If I go back and check my answers,
I am as
likely to change a right answer to a wrong one as otherwise.
So, if another person takes an hour to finish a test that takes me 20
minutes, and scores the same or higher than I do, he got the right
answer just as often as I did. Is he less intelligent than I
am?
One of the problems with test scores showing improvements in black iq's
is cheating. Frequently, schools producing major improvements
were
shown to be cheating by allowing the blacks more time to take the tests.
If you don't equate time with intelligence, but equate intelligence
with
finding the right answer more often, then blacks score higher on
intelligence tests when time is eliminated as a factor.
Since most intelligence tests are timed, and the measured difference
in
reaction time is roughly equal to the measured difference in
'intelligence' this suggests that the tests are biased against blacks
and not measuring their real intelligence, but rather their processing
speed.
Which is more important in most situations in life, getting the right
answer, or answering rapidly?
This is a real problem, one which strikes at the heart of the evidence
advanced in The Bell Curve 'proving' there is a real difference in
intelligence between blacks and whites.
On this evidence both have been provided with essentially the same
intelligence and reaction time/speed by evolution, but with slightly
different hardware to implement it. Paralel evolution.
Both being
equal but different.
There is a real difference between being unable to
understand algebra and taking a minute instead of 20 seconds to solve
an
algebra problem. Given unlimited time most persons would score
differently based on their understanding of the test. You reach
a
limit, answer all the questions you know, and guess at the rest your
knowledge does not increase while sitting in a testing room.
My iq is
around three sigmas of standard deviation above the norm, my processing
time is very fast, so I have lots of experience with wasted time in
test
rooms.
There are lots
of jobs in the automated army of today where fast physical speed of
movement is as important as fast reaction time. When dealing
with
relative minor differences that compensate each other, one mix can,
given a sufficient understanding of the tasks, perform as well as the
other.
There is a difference between mental power in the sense of finding the
right answer and mental speed.
The mix of speed and reaction presented by a slow cognitive
ability has a better chance of being trained to properly fulfil the
role
of fireman or policeman, if trained with that understanding, than if
misunderstood as low cognitive ability.
In theory, a gap in cognitive speed is far easier and less expensive
for
society to deal with than a gap in real cognitive ability. For
a gap in
cognitive speed, you slow down the curriculum, for a gap in cognitive
ability, you dumb down the curriculum.
Keeping someone in school for a couple of extra years until they learn
the basics needed for employment works for persons with slow cognitive
ability. It doesn't work for low cognitive ability, which hits
a
ceiling on what it can understand.
A couple of extra years in school is a lot less expensive to taxpayers
than twenty years in prison.
The worst thing you can do is ignore the problem, and hope it just goes
away. Advancing someone with slow learning rate before they master
the
material and eventually dumping them into society as adults with a
third
or fourth grade education is a pretty good way of ensuring that they
will perform in an inferior manner economically and professionally.
The
failed approach of our modern school system.
Oversimplifying the problem, and saying they have a low cognitive
ability is liable to lead to the same kind of failed approach, though
in
a different direction.
Recognizing a slow learning rate, adjusting the curricula to it, and
making sure that standards are met will probably do a lot to correct
the
problem. So, the difference between slow cognitive ability and
low
cognitive ability may be a fine one, but it could be important in
actually handling the problem.
These people have not had eight or nine years
of an adjusted curricula, they have had eight or nine years of being
advanced into a curricula they were not prepared to handle because
they
hadn't learned the earlier material yet. Social advancement.
Fast and slow are so widely used as synonyms for smart
and stupid, that it is pretty clear the distinction is hard to draw.
Except, who do you respect more, someone who snaps off a fast answer,
or
somone who thinks for a minute before replying. Social stereotypes
could go either way.
"The Bell Curve Wars"
This is a book containing essays debunking this or that part of 'The
Bell Curve'. Some of the authors approve of the book, believe
it needed
to be written but differ in detail with it's conclusions. Others
condemn the book as 'Back to the Future with The Bell Curve:Jim Crow,
Slavery and G'.
A surprising number of the essays are not focused primarily on chapter
13 and it's assertion of a real measured IQ difference between blacks
and whites. Several focus on the idea of a cognitive elite, and
point
out thta it's existence, even the process of it's formation is highly
questionable.
Not surprisingly, as a rule, the essays about chapter 13 are less
scholarly, less reasonable, more full of bad facts, misquotations
outright lies and nonsense than those less concerned with chapter 13.
The quality of the essays vary tremendously. Several very good
points
are raised, about the importance of iq as a determinant, the validity
of
the black/white difference, and the existence of a cognitive elite.
I will repeat the good points, those I found weighty enough to prompt
a
reevaluation of 'The Bell Curve' here. I will let you discover
the
nonsense, lies and emotional arguments yourself if you choose to check
the book out.
Good looks correlate highly with personal success. This has been
proven
in statistical studies more rigorous and less questionable than those
corellating IQ with success. Our cognitive elite may instead
be a
prettiness elite. This corresponds with my experience in the
military.
After 20 years I have no room for reasonable doubt that how pretty
you
look in a uniform has more to do with being selected to be an officer
than either education or IQ.
Unmotivated white students showed the same pattern of high score one
instant, low score the next that blacks did on the test cited in chapter
13 as hard to explain. Depression, low self esteem and low motivation
apparently depress performance in highly g weighted tasks more than
simple physical movement. Not really surprising when you think
about
it.
The black/white iq gap apparently is still shrinking. The apparent
stability in sat scores is due to a larger number of blacks taking
them,
thus lowering the average score for blacks. ACT scores have continued
to show the gap to be shrinking. Also, the total gap as measured
in
1991 was 11 points not 15, and the rate of shrinkage of the gap was
about 2 points a decade 4.5 points total, not 3 points as suggested
in
The Bell Curve. Suggesting, two different views looking at the
same
data.
One of the better articles was written by Hugh Pearson 'Developing the
Rage to Win'. It tells the story of a harlem chess club who became
regional champions. Likewise, 'The Lowerer's' by Leon Wieseltier
makes
a very telling and accurate description of the paralel's between the
ideas advanced by 'The Bell Curve' and black separatists. Several
articles point out that the problem of black intelligence is
related to
problems with black culture, and that unless black's are willing to
accept criticism of that culture, the problem cannot be corrected.
Overall, it is a book that anyone who has read 'The Bell Curve' should
read.
I have just finished reading 'Genetics and Intelligence:Current
Controversies". This book published about one year after 'The
Bell
Curve' is divided into four sections, the first is a history of the
controversy, printing articles dating back to the 1890's. After
that
the question of heretibility of intelligence is debated, then the
question of the validity of the measured iq gap, then the relevance
of
IQ to social issues.
The overall quality of the articles in this volume is superior to that
in 'The Bell Curve Wars'. All are scholarly, most by psychologists,
anthropologists, geneticists, and even one by an economist. They
present various points of view, and show that there is quite a bit
of
debate.
My Final Opinion
After reading 'The Bell Curve', 'The Bell Curve Wars', and 'Genetics
and
Intelligence:Current Controversies' I am prepared to register
an
opinion about whether the IQ gap discussed in chapter 13 of 'The Bell
Curve' is genetic or environmental in origin.
Before doing so, let us discuss what is known. Despite strong
disagreement from some, it is generally accepted that intelligence
exists, can be measured accurately by iq tests, and is largely
influenced by genetics. It is also known that inherited iq can
be
depressed by an unfavorable environment. Thus, potential iq is
inherited, that potential may be repressed or destroyed by an
unfavorable environment. It is also known that average black
iq has
been depressed or destroyed by an unfavorable environment. The
fact
that blacks have actually closed the measured iq gap by between 3 and
4.5 iq points in the last 20 years demonstrates this.
The question is, is the iq gap between blacks and whites due to the
environment repressing or destroying black intellectual potential,
or
due to an inherited difference between blacks and whites?
Aside from the measured gap itself, there is little evidence of an
inherited difference. Since part of the measured gap has already
been
shown to be due to environmental differences by being changed by the
environment, it is not implausible to assume that the rest of the gap
is
also due to the environment.
The gap is so large, between 1.1 and .73 standard deviations according
to different estimates that 'The Bell Curve' maintains there must be
a
similar difference in quality of environment to account for it.
This argument strikes me as being inherently fallacious. Very
small
changes can have major effects on the development of organisms.
IQ is
set by the time you are around 5, minor differences in ethnic culture
and behavior could have major effects on it's development.
Cavalli-Sforza a population geneticist says that the term race is
useless when studying human genetics. There is too much overlap.
The
genetic differences are just too small.
This argument strikes me as being inherently fallacious, very minor
changes in genetics can make major changes in human ability.
See the
williams syndrome people for an example.
On the side of environment. Populations with iq's measured lower
than
other ethnic populations have frequently recovered them in the past.
Rural whites in the South in many regions measured average IQ's below
the average of blacks in the urban north when the first major IQ testing
was done in this country. Improvement in schools and other
environmental factors allowed them to raise their iq's. An improvement
that was not matched for blacks due to segregation and other factors.
IQ distributions among populations where IQ is artificially reduced
by
environment shows a higher than normal frequency of women with high
IQ's
suggesting that women are more resistant to the negative effects of
environment than men. One writer pointed out that this is true
of black
IQ scores.
So, three volumes approximately 80 hours of reading. I was piled
down
with opposing opinions, most expressed by learned scholars with piles
of
college degrees. Knowing me, you know I wasn't impressed.
I was
looking for a smoking gun, something on which I could form my own
opinion.
I found it in a paper by Arthur R. Jensen published in 1969. The
smoking gun was the amount of variation of IQ in the black population
as
opposed to the white population. In 1969, it was .6 of the white
variation.
I found this somewhat anomalous. Genetically, american blacks
are quite
diverse, 30% european, 8% asian, and the rest, presumably african in
origin. In fact, genetically, blacks are probably more diverse
than
whites. Given greater genetic diversity, it seems logical to
assume
that variation of a genetically determined trait such as intelligence
should be greater, 1.1 or even 1.2. Instead, variation of that
genetically determined trait was .6. Half of what it would be
reasonable to expect.
This strongly suggests that some environmental factor is messing with
the genetics.
I went back to chapter 13. I looked at the bell curves for whites
and
blacks showing equal populations. The bell curve for blacks was
far
more irregular than that for whites, suggesting either that some
environmental factor was messing it up, or that the sample was too
small
for irregularities to have been removed. Indicative, but not
definitive.
However, note 26 on page 718 gives the iq points represented by one
sigma of standard deviation for blacks currently, after their iq gains.
12.4 approximately .82 of the 15 points for one sigma of standard
deviation for whites. So, at the same time that the iq gap was
narrowed, the variation within the black population went up.
Showing
that the depressing effects of environment were being alleviated.
It is still lower than you would expect. It should reasonably
be equal
to or greater than that for whites. My conclusion is that the
difference between variation of iq within the black population from
what
reason would suggest it should be is a measure of the degree to which
environment is depressing black intellectual development.
There is no way of saying for sure what that final measue of variation
is, but considering that it is far lower than what I suspect it should
be, I must attribute the iq gap between blacks and whites primarily
to
depressing effects of environment and not genetics.
Nurturing Behavior
One of the interesting statistics in Jensens work which I read while
researching the Bell Curve, was that Native Americans who lived in
poorer less intellectually rich environments than blacks nonetheless
scored on the average a half a sigma of deviation above blacks on iq
tests.
Jensen likes to attribute this iq gap to genetics. However, nurturing
behavior may be at the root of this. Klineberg in his observations
of
blacks noted that black nurturing behavior was different from that
of
whites. Black mothers would at ball games during half time move
their
childrens arms in time with the movement. Clearly nurturing and
training the infant in rhythm. He also noted that not all blacks
have a
sense of rhythm. That this difference between blacks and whites
could
easily be attributed to nurturing behavior rather than genetics.
Native American nurturing behavior is the opposite of this. The
child
is confined in a papoose, or tightly wrapped, unable to move it's body
but invited to participate in the world around it by observation of
what
the adults are doing. Native American customs differ greatly
from one
tribe to another, most speak to their children a great deal telling
teaching stories, and some never strike a child but only explain why
it's actions were wrong.
Thus, in two groups in America who live in deprived environments, one
develops intellectual skills, the other physical coordination and
rhythm, and there is a close correlation between this development and
early nurturing behavior.
Possibly the optimum would be a combination of both nurturing methods.
However, it is interesting to speculate on nurturing behavior as a
vector for cultural differences in measured IQ. Women grow up
to be
their mothers, as sons grow up to be their fathers. In many ways.
The
nurturing behavior of a mother is likely to be subconsciously imitated
by her daughter.
Intelligence, inquisitiveness, questioning of authority are not
encouraged in slaves. Mothers in a slave environoment might have
learned to suppress behaviors in their young children which they knew
would get them into trouble as adults. Thus suppressing behaviors
like
logically challenging authority, which would also suppress
inquisitiveness and intellectual development. This slave culture
nurturing behavior could be passed on from mother to daughter even
after
the environment which created it was escaped. Thus it provides
a
behavioral vector for passing on a limited intellectual development
that is independent of apparent environmental factors. This could
explain some of the more challenging data that appears to support
genetics over environmental factors.
|
Home |
|
|---|
