Comments on: Race, Gender, IQ and Nature

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:44:37 +0000

I’ve been reading through this blog and it has been interesting. I just have a few comments to make regarding the blog. One is about IQ tests are just something that is important to “old white men” in academia. This may be so, but it is because it has something to do with a person’s academic talent, so it relates to the probability of their doing well in higher education, particularly at the graduate degree level. Mathematical IQ certainly would have a bearing on a person’s performance in the science and math areas even in undergraduate work. So this type of IQ test is not irrelevant, but it is limited. There should be many more types of tests to measure how well people function in different areas, if you really want to measure other equally important areas for success in the job market or even success in life. I have a feeling that Social IQ would have the largest impact on a person’s overall success in life and also professionally. To get an accurate test of Social IQ would be much more difficult than getting accurate results on the things that a standard IQ test measures, because Social IQ is such a culture bound thing. A person from one culture taking a social IQ test that uses the norms of another culture would automatically disavantage someone from another culture. If the culture was radically different and the person taking the test had little exposure to the culture which judged the right and wrong answers the results could make someone who was highly skilled socially within their own culture appear to have a very low social IQ. As far as the regular IQ tests being culture bound they are much more generic and it is the culture in which a person wanting a higher education in this country has to deal with so we might as well accept the tests as valid, while realizing the limitation on what they actually predict.

In addition, whether or not race is a social construct or not it is not fair to give special privileges to individuals who may belong to groups that statistically don’t do as well on these tests, because that penalizes individuals belonging to groups that statistically do better on these tests, even though any individual member of that group may or may not have enjoyed any privilege that are being attributed to belonging to a group which has a higher mean IQ (or better college entrance test scores, ect). My own personal feeling is that IQ is a combination of nature and nurture, but that is not really relevant when judging test results.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:12:12 +0000

I’ve been reading through this blog and it has been interesting. I just have a few comments to make regarding the blog. One is about IQ tests are just something that is important to “old white men” in academia. This may be so, but it is because it has something to do with a person’s academic talent, so it relates to the probability of their doing well in higher education, particularly at the graduate degree level. Mathematical IQ certainly would have a bearing on a person’s performance in the science and math areas even in undergraduate work. So this type of IQ test is not irrelevant, but it is limited. There should be many more types of tests to measure how well people funcetion in different areas, if you really want to measure other equally important areas for success in the job market or even success in life. I have a feeling that Social IQ would have the largest impact on a person’s overall success in life and also professionally. To get an accurate test of Social IQ would be much more difficult than getting accurate results on the things that a standard IQ test measures, because it is such a culture bound thing. A person from one culture taking a social IQ test that uses the norms of another culture would automatically disavantage someone from another culture. If the culture was radically different and the person taking the test had little exposure to the culture which judged the right and wrong answers could make someone who was highly skilled socially withing their own culture appear to have a very low social IQ. As far as the regular IQ tests being culture bound they are much more generic and it is the culture which a person wanting a higher education in this country has to deal with so we might as well accept the tests as valid, while realizing the limitation on what they actually predict.

By: james

james — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:04:36 +0000

Greg, thanks for the plaudits and thanks for the criticism, though neither bother me one way or another – your opinion on my opinion means zero to me.
If the dog/ human analogy doesn’t work then what does?? Dogs share the same ancestral genetic thread, as do humans (not the same one -no human is descended from a wolf!! except maybe the grisly looking guy I saw in my gym last week!)

Both, if you discount Lewontin’s fallacy (and if you DON’T discount that then I hope you’re enojoying the ‘Flat Earth Society videos you watch on your betamax! x) then it’s the elephant in the room. Genetic difference is similar.
The history of dogs and humans, which you smugly, and I would guess disingeniously, sugges is ‘completely different’, is actually not. Like Jared Diamond, I think you know this (Jared states race doesn’t exist, except when he writes obscure essays for Jewish publications).

Same genetic history (shared ancestors), same prevalent admixture – but minimal in the wider scheme of things. Similar genetic distancing ( ok, not if you watch betamax Lewontin lectures- if you do, can I borrow them-haha, yeah right).

Same…..similarities but differences too. All dogs share character traits but some herd sheep better than others. Some fight better than other. Some run better than others…
I recall a hilarious tale of a politically correct ‘breeds don’t exist- they’re social constructs’ exponent who ostracised a friend who studied canine breed intelligence and found that, of dozens of breeds, the Afghan hound was least intelligent. The ‘breeds don’t exist’ guys (who probably wants to borrow those betamax tapes of yours) owned an afghan hound. hahahaha. it’s a true story- post a predictably smug reply and I’ll return a link for you, betamax baby!

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:36:37 +0000

James, you’ve done a pretty piss poor job of critique proofing your comment, by merely calling any critique of what you’ve said “sad.”

I probably agree in part with some of what you are saying, but I would not assume your argument is anything other than a wedge. But putting that aside for a moment, I’ll just point out that the genetic and breeding history of dogs is very different from that of humans, and when dogs are left to their own (as humans generally are) you get something much more like you get with humans. Lots and lots of mutts with the occassinal odd nail sticking up.

Your dog example just does not work.

By: james

james — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:35:14 +0000

Incidentally, if ‘race is a social construct’, then the fact means there is much less genetic distance between men and women, then gender must be a social construct as well??

I guess it’s racist to even buy a woman’s magazine then, or join a men’s social club.

By: james

james — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:32:30 +0000

I find it sad that Steph Z and others follow the mainstream line (Lewontin’s fallacy really casts a long shadow). People talk of diversity, yet deny the true beauty and diversity of humanity, different races, cultures and yes, race….
Just as all dogs are descended from wolves, so humans are from African ancestors. Like dogs, we are all developed as ethnic and yes, racial groups into a myriad of expressions of humanity, all beautiful in their own way.
I guess as there’s less genetic difference (using our old friend Lewontin’s fallacy and ignoring modern cluster analysis)between a pitbull and a chihuahua, and, as they, like us, come from the same ancestral line,that dog breeds don’t exist…
Very sad indeed, but I guess in a world moving towards globalisation, a Mcdonalds on every country and increasingly identikit nations states, that the ‘there’s no race we’re all the same’ nonsense is economically beneficial to our transnational corporations, and so governments. Therefore, academia will remain filled by those who sing the same tired old tune.

Cue an endless response of pop-scientist quotes from Dawkins, Jared Diamond and smug recitations of Flynn’s effect theorem.

Sad.

By: red rabbit

red rabbit — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:56:53 +0000

This has been touched on above, but surely the obvious problem with measuring IQ across groups, however you define these groups, is more with the definition of IQ equalling intelligence.

IQ testing is inherently flawed and measures one set of skills. This set of skills is undoubtedly of value in a given setting, but if you move into a new setting, are the same skills relevant? I think this may be what our terribly angry commenter above may have been getting at:

For example, within this group, this comment thread, clarity of language is highly valued, and the commenter above notes that that is fine, but that does not devalue flowery rhetorical skills in other settings.

Really, the hallmark of human intelligence is less can you fit this shape with the others, and more how well do you adapt to your environment.

We ought to have learned this from the people with calipers who “proved” that Africans were inferior and apelike. How ridiculous! What you’ll get into with measuring IQ across races, given that the IQ testing was designed by white men for white men to measure scores across skills that white men value…. well, people who are defined one way or another as “other” will in general score less well because they have different values, different experiences, different training, and will be much better at different things.

Or another way to put it might be, watch “The Gods Must be Crazy,” and realise that western cultural values might not be so clever in a different environment.

By: Observer

Observer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:58:27 +0000

***You’re told race is a social construction, not a genetic one, and you’re called racist for continuing to insist that, no, no, there’s really an inherent, underlying, meaningful difference between them and you.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | March 2, 2010 2:03 PM***

There’s an interesting comparison here to adolescence. It’s a social construct, but it also has a biological component.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:53 +0000

No, james. You’re told race is a social construction, not a genetic one, and you’re called racist for continuing to insist that, no, no, there’s really an inherent, underlying, meaningful difference between them and you.

By: james

james — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:51:42 +0000

We are mandated- to spend tens of millions of dollars on affirmative action, further tens of millions on funding black focus groups, community groups, despite the while being told ‘race doesn’t exist’ – (a term which only seems to come up when discussing white people, yet never seems to get a mention when dicussing other races).

If we are legally forced to not only recognise the black race, but to spend countless millions on aiding this group to better itself socially, educationally and economically, then it’s nothing but bizarre that we risk condemnation as ‘racists’ if we even study iq differences in relation to black and other ethnic and racial groups.