[I]n 1994 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in "The Bell Curve," notoriously proposed that Americans with the lowest I.Q.s be sequestered in a "high-tech" version of an Indian reservation, "while the rest of America tries to go about its business."
No. No they did not propose this. They feared it, because in older times, even very smart people ended up working on family farms and in factories -- nowadays, we're more IQ-segregated than ever, and if this continues, we'll have a world where the bright and dull interact even less than they already do. They proposed a return to a world where neighborhoods, rather than governments, provided services, so people with lower IQs could find places in each community. See a more accurate quote/paraphrase job here.
Then this:
To the I.Q. fundamentalist, two things are beyond dispute: first, that I.Q. tests measure some hard and identifiable trait that predicts the quality of our thinking; and, second, that this trait is stable—that is, it is determined by our genes and largely impervious to environmental influences.
Wrong again. IQ fundamentalists, to the degree they exist, think IQ is stable over a person's lifetime, after age 5 or so, not that it is "impervious to environmental influences." It is simply a fact that environment influences IQ, and even the most hardcore IQ-philes know this. You'd have to ignore gigantic bits of evidence to claim otherwise.
And then:
From the perspective of an I.Q. fundamentalist, the fact that Africans score lower than Europeans on I.Q. tests suggests an ineradicable cognitive disability.
Nope. No one who knows what he's talking about automatically assumes that every IQ difference is genetic. There are a variety of ways to test where exactly the gap comes from, and both sides have some evidence.
For example, once could posit that the black-white income gap creates the black-white IQ gap -- but when you look at the data, whites and blacks with incomes of (say) $45,000 will still differ in their average IQs. Newer research looks at specific genes related to cognition and has found at least some of them to be unequally distributed through humanity. Some no-genetic-component arguments here. I'm an agnostic on the question, but this is an incredibly dishonest way to put the genetic-component side's view.
Next:
Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion.
He's studied that, and it is a bit absurd. But it's just as absurd to say he "specializes" in this very specific question. His specialty, I'd say, is racial IQ differences in general.
The one positive thing I can say about this article is that it provides a decent summary of James Flynn's work.
5 comments:
You say:
"Wrong again. IQ fundamentalists, to the degree they exist, think IQ is stable over a person's lifetime, after age 5 or so, not that it is "impervious to environmental influences." It is simply a fact that environment influences IQ, and even the most hardcore IQ-philes know this. You'd have to ignore gigantic bits of evidence to claim otherwise."
What about Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton? Jensen's criticism of programs like "headstart" heavily relied upon the argument that a good enviroment cannot overcome the limits of our genes. And to say that something is "stable" over a person's lifetime is to suggest that it is essentially immutable no matter what type of enviroment the person finds himself in. What's the essential difference between what Gladwell says and your correction?
you say: "Nope. No one who knows what he's talking about automatically assumes that every IQ difference is genetic. There are a variety of ways to test where exactly the gap comes from, and both sides have some evidence."
But it is true that IQ fundementalists believe global IQ scores are a reflection of human genetic variation. Read Richard Lynn and J. Phillippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. These are the people Gladwell is talking about.
you say: "He's studied that, and it is a bit absurd. But it's just as absurd to say he "specializes" in this very specific question."
It was ridicule.
Question 1: Actually, there's a huge difference. Early childhood environment, and even environment in the womb, can affect IQ. If these things create the entire racial gap, it can be fixed. If there's an additional genetic component, it can be narrowed but never eliminated.
Even people who think IQ gaps are entirely environmental believe this. It is simply a fact that IQ scores tend to stay pretty much the same after age 5 or so.
2: No, they believe SOME national IQ scores IN PART reflect genetic differences. It would be absurd to argue otherwise -- black Africans have lower IQs than black Americans, so it's clear environment plays a role.
3: Given that Gladwell got so many serious statements so wrong in this piece, it's hard to tell when he's joking.
Regarding point 1--you are forgetting that Gladwell was writing about people who dismiss the idea that enviromentalism is ultimately the cause of IQ differentials between groups. Rushton & Lynn--two of the most prominent researchers on racial IQ differences--vociferously hold that the differential between groups is ultimately accounted by genes, genes, genes, with the enviroment being a paltry influence as far as group comparisons are concerned.
regarding point 2--you forget that Rushton has argued that the IQ difference between black americans and black africans is explained by the fact that black americans are in part white. This viewpoint is echoed all across the "racial realism" community. So, once again--it's all genes.
3--perhaps.
Good points -- I just think you're overestimating the degree to which "racial realists" think genes are to blame. Gladwell seems to make the same mistake; either the gap is all genetic or all environmental, not a bit of both.
So far as I can tell from reading The Bell Curve, keeping up to date to a degree with "race realist" academic writings and following Steve Sailer's writing, the legitimate debate seems to be between (A) part genetic and (B)all environmental. I have never seen anyone assert as fact that the WHOLE gap, or even the vast majority of it, is genetic.
I also haven't seen Rushton's assertion as to white admixture, but so far as I can tell, even the "race realists" admit that interbreeding hasn't been extensive enough to explain the whole difference.
I think the best way to put the nature vs. nurture debate is in terms of heritability, a concept which has its most accessible tutorial in "Intelligence, Race and Genetics".
In my opinion, it is hard to discuss the nature-nurture debate properly without an appreciation of statistics. If you don't bring in the statistical element, you end up making and interpreting statements naively.
In any particular sample of people, the differences in test performance can be mostly determined by the environment or mostly determined by genes. It is repeated sample analysis that has led IQ test researchers to the conclusion that in most populations, most of the variance is reasonably attributed to genetic differences.
Post a Comment