Some comments about "race" and "intelligence"

This post is directed toward Brad Trun, but others may definitely chime in. A couple issues with the idea that race predicts intelligence are that intelligence improves over time and that there is no difference in intelligence among adopted kids.

Psychometrics (measuring mental power) is a science in its infancy and needs to be worked out better than it has been. That said, using rudimentary psychometrics, IQs nowadays are a full 15 points higher than in the early 1900s. That's called the Flynn Effect, named after a psychometric researcher who discovered it. It flies in the face of the notion that intelligence is genetic. Genetics do not appreciably change within a century, but human intelligence has.

That's the first point.

Also, when kids get adopted (no matter their race), their intelligence matches. This finding supports the notion that environment overrides genetics.

That's the second point.

Ed

Post 1

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:10pm

Ed,

Thanks for opening this here in dissent.
Here is the post I made in response to a post of Dean's in that other thread:

Dean,

You left out some aspects of racism: A belief that a person's worth, character and/or intelligence are primarily products of racial genetic contributions. Brad does seem to agree with at least some of that.

We know, or should know, that intelligence is a complex component in us humans given our volition, emotional nature, our reasoning ability which is at least partially an effect of our psychological characteristics, our level of knowledge, the psycho-epistemology we have adopted, and the past choices we've made. And we should know that character is a product of choice, not race.

You wrote that, "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement" is racism. That was enough for me - I didn't need those 'Invalid connotations' you included. This statement says that a black man's genes have locked him into a range of individual achievement and a range of cultural expression - and that those limitations are predicated on the genes being those of a black man. That's invalid and racist.

And as to those 'Invalid connotations' - I disagree that racism always implies or always entails government control, or government being racist, or a hatred or intolerance of other races. Racism is an individual's set of beliefs that don't necessarily include a belief that one race be ruled by another. We have racist beliefs among private citzens in contexts where there is no government involvement. And there are individuals who have no hatred for another race at all, but still believe that some races are inferior in intelligence and/or character.

Post 2

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:27pm

Dean,

You wrote, "At some point in the future (after the human species becomes more diverse), the slippery slope's edge will become less steep, and there will be more 'racist' objectivists."

This will never happen. A racist Objectivist is a contradiction in terms. It can only sit in someone's mind in a non-contradictory fashion if they misunderstand 'racist' and/or misunderstand 'Objectivist.'

The key element in nearly everything Objectivist is that humans possess volition - we make choices. It is a built-in aspect of being human, of having a rational capacity, and it is how we build upon our intelligence, drive whatever intelligence we have at the moment, and the way we create culture and participate in culture, how we acquire a moral code, and how we build our character.

Racism, to be properly defined must always carry the understanding that genes are responsible for some or all of what is actually a product of choice. And to be an Objectivist must always imply an agreement that we make choices - it is in our nature.

All the rest is details.

Post 3

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:38pm

I'm advancing contextual race realism, meaning I'm not exempting race from an objective assessment of its nature.

People who invoke Hitler or feign moral outrage over a mere factual discussion of whether racial traits help explain some of the observable racial realities in society remind me of religious fanatics who oppose scientific inquiries into sensitive topics on moral grounds. Such people are withdrawing themselves from the realm of rational discourse.

Just because I'm for individualism in social ethics and politics doesn't mean I'm for imposing that viewpoint prescriptively on the facts of reality. Racial variation exists biologically because the human species as it branched out geographically didn't stop evolving. Racial variation affects organs, body systems, and chemicals. Racial variation influences susceptibility to certain diseases, influences cognitive capacity, and influences psychological traits such as extroversion.

Anyone who denies the existence of genetic variation among races or asserts that it has nothing to do with academic, economic, and crime disparities that are consistently observed among races is either ignorant or willfully blind to facts in service of an ideology that rests on faith.

Post 4

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:45pm

Wikipedia:
===========
Estimates of the heritability of IQ

Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[6][16][17] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[7][18] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6]

A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that heritability is as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[5]

In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies,[8] while a 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7]

===========

US test scores
Main article: Achievement gap in the United States

Rushton and Jensen (2005 and 2010) write that in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs). 15% to 20% of the black IQ distribution exceeds the white median IQ, so many blacks obtain scores above the white average. The black-white IQ difference is largest on those tests that best represent the general intelligence factor g.[19][23] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns* and the 1994 statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[4][64] Roth et al. (2001) in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude found a black-white gap of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[65]

===========

Conclusions:
Whether its cause is genetic, environmental, or self determination: current adult US blacks have a lower IQ than current whites (whites being higher by 1-1.1 standard deviations).

Talking about genetics, the heritability of IQ is between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults.

I'm not sure what that "heritability" means. Kinda tired right now and not interested in doing mathematics at the moment.

Post 5

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 5:02pm

Ed,

there is no difference in intelligence among adopted kids.

There is no sameness in intelligence among any populations of kids, however reared. Maybe what you meant to say is that the differences are less pronounced.

It flies in the face of the notion that intelligence is genetic. Genetics do not appreciably change within a century, but human intelligence has.

That's like saying that the increase in life expectancies flies in the face of the notion that death is genetic.

You're mired in dichotomized either/or thinking. What's really happening is that humans are now able to make more out of thier genetic potential, which nature has not distributed equally. Humans are not transcending their own nature, their own innate limitations (which would be an impossibility).

when kids get adopted (no matter their race), their intelligence matches

Not according to trans-racial adoption studies.

Obviously, the best way to measure racial variation in general intelligence would be to put people of different races in identical environments from birth and track their progress.
So, if such an experiment were to be conducted, Ed, what's your prediction on the outcome? Since this is purely hypthetical, let's say your life depended on your prediction being accurate to within 5%. Would you bet your life on the blacks in the study -- given the same instruction, same living conditions, same diet, etc., as the orientals -- scoring just as high as the orientals on a standardized math test?

Post 6

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 5:09pm

On the subject of race... here is some statistics on racism on a dating website.

Post 7

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 5:18pm

Steve wrote:

This statement says that a black man's genes have locked him into a range of individual achievement and a range of cultural expression - and that those limitations are predicated on the genes being those of a black man. That's invalid and racist.

A is A. To be a beagle is to have beagle DNA and not that of a poodle. To be a black man is to have the DNA of a black male and not that of a white female. Yes, a black man is "locked into" a range of abilities that are circumscribed by his nature, just as a white female is. Within that range they have choice. But they have different bodies and different brains that give them different identities. To posit the ability to transcend one's genes is invalid and mysticist.

Post 8

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 6:09pm

Brad,

Your answer is far from honest. You said, "...a black man is 'locked into' a range of abilities that are circumscribed by his nature..."

But what I said was that it is wrong to think that "...a black man's genes have locked him into a range of individual achievement and a range of cultural expression..."
--------------

I said that the genes didn't affect that which is driven by choice. Those achievements, which include cultural achievements are not determined by genes.

You are the mystic who wants there to be a way to rank people by the melanin in their skin and you choose the cowardly technique of twisting your pseudo-scientific theories to support that desire. I find your arguments as baseless as those made in the deep South in the fifties when they said that blacks weren't as intelligent as whites and that they needed different laws for blacks. That was the same kind of argument made when slavery was legal - different races have different characteristics and they justified slavery.

You can cite your statistics and studies all day long while ignoring the simple logic that tells us that intelligence, character and culture are far, far more driven by choice than anything else - but then those who are determinists don't recognize choice. And without a belief that we can make choices, a person puts themself in opposition to free enterprise, individual rights, and individualism.

Post 9

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 7:11pm

Steve,

You're either an idiot or pretending to be one in order to protect your dogmatic moral pronouncements from facts that you perceive to be threatening.

I said that the genes didn't affect that which is driven by choice. Those achievements, which include cultural achievements are not determined by genes.

We have choice to the extent that it's encoded in our genes. But the existence of choice doesn't mean that great achievements are entirely a matter of will. They require a pre-existing capacity for achievement in a given area -- a necessary, but not sufficient condition. There won't be as many great achievements from populations with smaller brains and lower IQs as from populations with larger brains and higher IQs. It's not moral or immoral; it's just reality.

You are the mystic who wants there to be a way to rank people by the melanin in their skin

I don't think you're dumb enough to actually believe what you write, but maybe you are. I think it's more likely that you're playing dumb, that you've decided to disengage your mind from focusing on the subject at hand in an open, objective, truth-seeking manner.

I never claimed to want to rank Japanese and Mexicans who may share the same melanin content equally in intelligence; nor have I asserted that African negro albinos who lack melanin are smarter than dark-skinned Africans.

That was the same kind of argument made when slavery was legal - different races have different characteristics and they justified slavery.

I'm making the same kind of argument that Thomas Jefferson made when slavery was legal - that different races have different characteristics but the same moral rights as humans; hence, slavery is immoral.

Post 10

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 8:18pm

I think a more worthy question would be Ed! Did you ever get a date with Praxgirl?

Post 11

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 8:50pm

Brad,

You said, "You're either an idiot or pretending to be one in order to protect your dogmatic moral pronouncements from facts that you perceive to be threatening."

The only rational answer to cheap attacks like that is, "Fuck you." I don't give polite answers in response to name calling.
----------------------------

We have choice to the extent that it's encoded in our genes.

That is a fairly meaningless statement. It doesn't say how much choice people have or what effect choice plays in this argument. Nobody knows how intelligence is coded in genes, nor can anyone point to the DNA combination that gives us our unique form of choice. But there you are... ready to proclaim that blacks have genetically encoded inferiority.
-----------------------------

But the existence of choice doesn't mean that great achievements are entirely a matter of will.

Another meaningless statement. Great achievements depend on many things. So what? This argument is still about you saying that some races are genetically incapable of great achievements. Still racist.
-----------------------------

They [great achievements] require a pre-existing capacity for achievement in a given area -- a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

That's you saying blacks don't have the capacity for great achievements. Still racist.
------------------------------

Post 12

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 9:10pm

Steve I agree.
I would also add that luke's additional input was extremely insightful as to how envoronmental and economic conditions of one's parents plays a huge roll in determining iq and he is correct it has nothing to do with race.

Also if ones parents cannot afford to feed you anything but mac n cheese and you lack sufficient nutrients during your formative years that too is going to compound the effect.

However one can never judge what an INDIVIDUAL Is capable of rising to regardless of his current circumstance.

You cannot simply pass judgement on an entire race as being inferior you are completely negating an individuals ability and ignoring freedom of that individuals drive and spirit.

By attempting to prove one races inferiority or anothers superiority you do a great diservice to all and make it all the more difficult for the one minority that means the most...the rights of the individual.

Post 13

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 9:18pm

I found this here, after I posted on "Race" but being an Afro-Euro-Asian mongrel, I am not too bright. The short story for those of us with low intelligence is that identical twins raised together are only likely to have IQs within 85% of each other, not 100% as predicted by genetics alone.

Post 14

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 10:37pm

The only rational answer to cheap attacks like that is, "Fuck you." I don't give polite answers in response to name calling.

So sayeth the person whose response to my efforts at a rational discussion on racial variation was to quit in a fit of rage and declare he's cut off all communication with me, then come back weeks later to proclaim his moral superiority for disbelieving in racial variation in intelligence, and proceed to call me "racist" and other ugly names in response to his own straw men on slavery, "inferiority," "genetically incapable," melanin, and other strange things he arbitrarily introduced and falsely and maliciously ascribed to me knowing full well he was grossly misrepresenting my views.

Offering up "Fuck you" as his "only rational answer" proves my negative evaluation of his intellect. In addition to being dishonest, I think in some respects he really is as stupid as his words suggest, meaning that to some extent and on some levels he is probably incapable of processing ideas that trigger negative emotional reactions. It's clearly emotion on display here, not reason.

(Edited by Brad Trun on 11/03, 10:39pm)

Post 15

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 11:00pm

Brad let's imagine if you will a situation.
Let's say you are ceo of a corporation and you are looking to hire someone out of harvard for an important high end position.

Before you stand 2 applicants.
Both have attended the exact same courses.
Both have attained the exact same scores in every course..let's say both scored 100% in every course.
Both have identical qualifications.
One is white, one is black.
The white man comes from old money.
The black man comes from compton.
Who do you hire?

Post 16

Friday, November 4, 2011 - 3:12am

MEM wrote:

"The short story for those of us with low intelligence is that identical twins raised together are only likely to have IQs within 85% of each other, not 100% as predicted by genetics alone."

That is very interesting!

Can you point us to a research paper on the subject?

I knew a pair of identical twin girls at my old high school where one qualified as "gifted" and the other did not. Ironically, the "gifted" one became pregnant on prom night though she remains married to the father of her child many years later. So I am not sure how "gifted" she really was.

I have to wonder if this difference in intelligence relates to the observation that twins raised together tend to select different careers to distinguish themselves from one another whereas twins raised apart often select identical careers.

Post 17

Friday, November 4, 2011 - 6:33am

Brad,

There is no sameness in intelligence among any populations of kids, however reared. Maybe what you meant to say is that the differences are less pronounced.

Good point. And yes, that is what I meant. I was getting pretty colloquial with my speech (just like I am now, by calling my typing my "speaking").

It flies in the face of the notion that intelligence is genetic. Genetics do not appreciably change within a century, but human intelligence has.

That's like saying that the increase in life expectancies flies in the face of the notion that death is genetic.

Not actually. To make it a good analogy, you have to include a sense of proportion. To change your wording, it would look like this:

That's like saying that the increase in life expectancies flies in the face of the notion that "early" (before age 50) death is genetic.

Under this more exact wording, the analogy is good. The exact length of your life has a genetic component, but that component is minor -- compared to environmental factors. In the same way, the exact measure of your IQ has a genetic component, but that component is minor -- compared to environmental factors.

when kids get adopted (no matter their race), their intelligence matches
Not according to trans-racial adoption studies.

We'll have to each find examples and link to them. The winner of this point will either have more or better controlled studies than the other. In the case where the science is split -- half of good studies support you, and half of good studies support me -- we will have to declare a draw. I admit I may lose on this point but anyway, here goes:

"Let the games begin!" ...

Ed

Post 18

Friday, November 4, 2011 - 4:38pm

Lol ill be putting my money on Ed.

Post 19

Friday, November 4, 2011 - 4:49pm