Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

[DavidOdden]

My definition was meant to poke fun at this.

Okay; sorry, I thought you were serious. Thing is, a lot of people think that there is some relationship between objectively measured skin color and the usage of the term "black" as a racial term, so it's hard to tell when people are poking fun at the idea versus actually taking it seriously. I didn't mean to misconstrue your intent.

[Cogito]

I say "if we wanted to", because I really don't care to and consider a conversation on the subject rationalistic.

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may be off topic, but such a conversation might be necessary if someone were to try to, for example, link being black to being less intelligent, because such a claim would require something in the nature of being black (or not white) which causes said lower intelligence and thus the nature of being black would have to be really well defined.

[Inspector]

It is not helpful in any way to break an argument down by semantics unless you suspect them to be actually using the word wrongly, or you are sincerely trying to better understand their meaning more precisely and suspect you have different definitions then they hold. I submit, that in the present circumstance, this is not the case.

Actually, I think it is the case. I was going to say so earlier, but my post kind of went in circles. David got half of what I was going to say. The other half is here:

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may be off topic, but such a conversation might be necessary if someone were to try to, for example, link being black to being less intelligent, because such a claim would require something in the nature of being black (or not white) which causes said lower intelligence and thus the nature of being black would have to be really well defined.

(Thanks, Cogito)

Yes, I think that is the case here. The reason why a definition was being asked for is because once one is given, the "racial intelligence" thing starts to break down. Not because anyone is calling into question the validity of the label "black."

[aequalsa]

Actually, I think it is the case. I was going to say so earlier, but my post kind of went in circles. David got half of what I was going to say. The other half is here:

(Thanks, Cogito)

Yes, I think that is the case here. The reason why a definition was being asked for is because once one is given, the "racial intelligence" thing starts to break down. Not because anyone is calling into question the validity of the label "black."

I see. So if I were to get a decent random sample of dark skinned people from around the world, that tested below average on an IQ test, it would not be valid because I could not accurately identify to what extent they were actually black? That doesn't seem like a good refutation to me. It would be easy enough to draw a midline in possible pigmentation and test above and below that line. In all likelihood differences would be found to exist. And then say as people get darker they are less intelligent on average, or something to that effect.

I don't have much in the way of specific knowledge on the subject, but if intelligence was tied directly and mainly to one's genetics(I don't think it is) then I see no reason to believe that an "intelligence gene" could not always be found attached to a "pigment gene". The burden of proving this would be on the person making the claim that it was connected. It may turn out to be true, but I am not aware of a strong case for this existing yet.

My guess is that most differences in intelligence, even if they exist at birth, are causally connected to the diet and health of the mother during pregnancy(protein deficiencies, crack habits, etc are well known to hamper the brain development in utero). Other differences probably accumulate after birth due to culture and habits. This diet/enviromental difference could explain differences well when looking crossculturally. Exceptions to this would be actual neurological disorders.

[Cogito]

I see. So if I were to get a decent random sample of dark skinned people from around the world, that tested below average on an IQ test, it would not be valid because I could not accurately identify to what extent they were actually black?

No, it would not be valid because you would not have any way of connecting being black with being below average. What about the nature of being black causes below average intelligence? To say so you have to know "the nature of being black".

[Inspector]

I see. So if I were to get a decent random sample of dark skinned people from around the world, that tested below average on an IQ test, it would not be valid because I could not accurately identify to what extent they were actually black?

Er, no. Not quite. While "black" is a useful term in the vernacular, does it have any scientific usefulness?

[aequalsa]

Er, no. Not quite. While "black" is a useful term in the vernacular, does it have any scientific usefulness?

Sure...off the top of my head, sun block, sickle cell anemia, hair care products, skin lotions...I imagine other race related differences could exist that would warrant different genetic groups being viewed differently by science.

[DavidOdden]

Sure...off the top of my head, sun block, sickle cell anemia, hair care products, skin lotions...I imagine other race related differences could exist that would warrant different genetic groups being viewed differently by science.

The sun-block factor is the one correct identification -- skin pigment is related to burnability; but then "black" isn't the correct identification. Dark skin and straight hair is common in India, and blond hair is only present in a small subgroup of whites, so I don't know what hair-care science we're able to engage in with skin tone as a causal factor. Sickle cell is only loosely correlated with skin tone; I'd suggest testing it's distribution in Papuans, Australian Aboriginees, Andamaners and South Indians, to see it skin tone correlation holds up: as I understand it, it's primarily a West and Central African mutation. If you mean "is most often correlated with African ancestory", I accept that, but that is different from either the social construct "black" (which is now defined as "how you self-identify") or an objective measure of light-absorbing properties of the skin.

[Viking]

When I say black, I mean:

"of or belonging to a racial group having dark skin, of sub-Saharan African origin"

I'm surprised that you subscribe to this view though, Inspector, considering you were quite opposed to it in the Masculinity thread:

You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist - only individual men exist. It is indeterminable because it does not exist.

Remember this whole thing, with mrocktor? This is the same exact objection people are raising. Edited February 8, 2007 by Viking

[Viking]

I'd like to clarify my position on this topic and present some new evidence. Forget my whole correlation scenario, that is no longer necessary. Instead, take a look at this Study by Rushton. David, you said yourself that "I don't think Rushton is a crackpot."

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_...on_Behavior.pdf

If you want to get a quick overview, look at the chart on page 9:

It would be impossible to explains these differences with simply cultural or environmental reasons. That is a summary of his findings, so if you want to see supportive evidence, read on. I have read almost the whole report, and I've ordered the unabridged 3rd edition (this PDF is the abridged 2nd version).

I hope nobody will continue the whole "You cant determine the strength of "men", because "men" doesn't exist" approach, as I have already defined "black" above, even though I should not have needed to. As aequelsa said:

It is not helpful in any way to break an argument down by semantics unless you suspect them to be actually using the word wrongly, or you are sincerely trying to better understand their meaning more precisely and suspect you have different definitions then they hold. I submit, that in the present circumstance, this is not the case.

In fact, I would add to that. If that is what you are doing, you are practicing evasion.

[LaszloWalrus]

Uh, the site you linked to is full of deterministic ideas and is founded upon the ideas of Francis Galton, a founder of eugenics.

Why are differences in average cranial capacity relevant?

The "data" on personality are nonsense on their face; all of the traits listed under the "personality" category are determined by IDEAS. The same applies mutatis mutandis to "cultural acheivements," "law abidingness," and "marital stability."

[Viking]

Uh, the site you linked to is full of deterministic ideas and is founded upon the ideas of Francis Galton, a founder of eugenics.

This study is hosted many places. What this particular host believes is irrelevant.

Why are differences in average cranial capacity relevant?

Is this a serious question? It is linked to intelligence.

The "data" on personality are nonsense on their face; all of the traits listed under the "personality" category are determined by IDEAS. The same applies mutatis mutandis to "cultural acheivements," "law abidingness," and "marital stability."

Determined by IDEAS? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying these terms are completely subjective, and you have no idea what he is talking about?

[DavidOdden]

It would be impossible to explains these differences with simply cultural or environmental reasons.

This is the point that I call into question. I'm not claiming that "men" don't exist. You said you defined "black" above -- it would be really nice if you could mention which post you gave that definition in. Now, are you prepared to defend the science behind the study? I'm less interested in that study, and more interested in knowing what exactly you are claiming, so if you would restate your claim, then we might eliminate distractions such as whether "blacks" have "kinky" hair, or "Norwegians" have blonde "hair". BTW, is it fair for me to assume that you have enough of a statistical background that we can discuss the factors in his regression analysis and questions of significance?

[softwareNerd]

Instead, take a look at this Study by Rushton. David, you said yourself that "I don't think Rushton is a crackpot."

At least this page has an obvious problem. Being black, white or oriental means that one has a high probability of ascribing to black, white oriental cultures/philosophies. In my judgement, unless we're speaking of babies, the IQ thing is highly value-driven as well. Therefore that page of the study tells me absolutely nothing.

If I were a researcher into this topic, I might be interested in comparing the cranial capacity alone. If so, I would want to take a mix of people across colors and cultures and see, within each segment not across segments, if cranial capacity seems to make a difference. For IQ, I would want to compare babies, and while I may average across "blacks" and "whites", I would want more detail within those -- e.g. understanding of the other factors, before I could draw conclusions.

As an aside, even apart from those who have non-scientific agendas, it seems that too many researchers these days have an empiricist approach. The approach appears to be: what measurable factors can explain X? This is okay, as long as "measurable" is used very broadly; however, the next step seems to be to replace "conveniently measurable" for measurable. In terms of what kids do, parental expectation and values are obviously the most important factor. However, it's really tough to come up with a way to measure this numerically, particularly without a good understanding of philosophy. So, the researcher uses something else. In the end, one sees a study that says "kids who eat breakfast do well in school", and one does not know whether it is true in the sense that is really actionable, or whether families with a certain type of values and parental expectations also happen to give their kids breakfast more regularly.

My suspicion is not about agenda -- though I'm sure they exist. My suspicion is about the whole epistemological approach. The motivation of researchers to get their Phd or to publish papers might be playing some role, but the more serious aspect is that it is facilitated by an empiricist approach that seems to have taken over this type of psychology research.

[Inspector]

I'm surprised that you subscribe to this view though, Inspector, considering you were quite opposed to it in the Masculinity thread:

Well, contradictions don't exist so check your premises...

[DavidOdden]

If I were a researcher into this topic, I might be interested in comparing the cranial capacity alone.

You see, this is so clear and obvious that I am shocked that Rushton didn't get this. Start by directly establishing a correlation between cranial capacity and IQ. These studies are frighteningly easy to dismantle.

[LaszloWalrus]

I thought that cranial capacity is not correlated with IQ in humans.

Didn't Neanderthals have LARGER craniums than Homo Sapiens?

[DavidOdden]

Didn't Neanderthals have LARGER craniums than Homo Sapiens?

An inconvenient truth. Although to be fair, the records of Neanderthal IQ scores got lost, so maybe they were very smart.

You said you defined "black" above -- it would be really nice if you could mention which post you gave that definition in.

And needless to say, I retract this request, for presumably obvious reasons.

[Viking]

This is the point that I call into question. I'm not claiming that "men" don't exist. You said you defined "black" above -- it would be really nice if you could mention which post you gave that definition in. Now, are you prepared to defend the science behind the study? I'm less interested in that study, and more interested in knowing what exactly you are claiming, so if you would restate your claim, then we might eliminate distractions such as whether "blacks" have "kinky" hair, or "Norwegians" have blonde "hair". BTW, is it fair for me to assume that you have enough of a statistical background that we can discuss the factors in his regression analysis and questions of significance?

My claim is that there exists physical differences between the races that determine their achievement, that the differences cannot be explained by purely cultural problems, racism, etc. I'll defend the study as best as I can, but I have not taken statistics yet. Do you think that is Rushton's problem though? That his math is off?

[Viking]

At least this page has an obvious problem. Being black, white or oriental means that one has a high probability of ascribing to black, white oriental cultures/philosophies. In my judgement, unless we're speaking of babies, the IQ thing is highly value-driven as well. Therefore that page of the study tells me absolutely nothing.

If I were a researcher into this topic, I might be interested in comparing the cranial capacity alone. If so, I would want to take a mix of people across colors and cultures and see, within each segment not across segments, if cranial capacity seems to make a difference. For IQ, I would want to compare babies, and while I may average across "blacks" and "whites", I would want more detail within those -- e.g. understanding of the other factors, before I could draw conclusions.

As an aside, even apart from those who have non-scientific agendas, it seems that too many researchers these days have an empiricist approach. The approach appears to be: what measurable factors can explain X? This is okay, as long as "measurable" is used very broadly; however, the next step seems to be to replace "conveniently measurable" for measurable. In terms of what kids do, parental expectation and values are obviously the most important factor. However, it's really tough to come up with a way to measure this numerically, particularly without a good understanding of philosophy. So, the researcher uses something else. In the end, one sees a study that says "kids who eat breakfast do well in school", and one does not know whether it is true in the sense that is really actionable, or whether families with a certain type of values and parental expectations also happen to give their kids breakfast more regularly.

My suspicion is not about agenda -- though I'm sure they exist. My suspicion is about the whole epistemological approach. The motivation of researchers to get their Phd or to publish papers might be playing some role, but the more serious aspect is that it is facilitated by an empiricist approach that seems to have taken over this type of psychology research.

Well, theres basically 3 theories of why the races have different levels of achievement.

1) purely environmental, culture, racism, etc

2) purely genetic

3) A combination of both

Rushton believes in 3, as do I.

If you don't believe in IQ testing, I disagree, but ok. How do you explain the other differences, though? Surely you don't think penis size, skeletal development, and 2-egg twinning levels are all determined by cultural reasons?

[Viking]

You see, this is so clear and obvious that I am shocked that Rushton didn't get this. Start by directly establishing a correlation between cranial capacity and IQ. These studies are frighteningly easy to dismantle.

I thought that cranial capacity is not correlated with IQ in humans.

Rushton did establish it, on page 24.

My article with C. D. Ankney “Brain Size and Cognitive Ability” in the 1996 issue of the journal

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies

that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very

good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults.

The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the

0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still

significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at

birth and adult IQ.

[DavidOdden]

My claim is that there exists physical differences between the races that determine their achievement, that the differences cannot be explained by purely cultural problems, racism, etc.

Okay: this means that tendency for sickle-cell anemia wouldn't be an example of "achievement", nor would hair texture. So in order to be taken seriously, you need to purge your consciousness of irrelevant distractions, such as the legendary penis size issue. Only consider facts that bear on achievement, in which case, size does not matter. (I invite you to refrain from engaging in tergiversions about "achievements", in this respect).

Do you think that is Rushton's problem though? That his math is off?

Typically, people plug numbers into a well-engineered stats package. The validity of the mathematical inferences simply requires attention to the relationship between the sample that you base your inference on, and the population that the inference is claimed to be about. One such principle is that members of the population have the same chance of influencing the measurement. So if I were to ask 100 people in the neighborhood "Do you speak Norwegian, or Swedish", extrapolating to the world would result in the faulty conclusion that almost everybody speaks Norwegian and almost nobody speaks Swedish (despite there actually being about twice as many Swedish speakers as Norwegian speakers). Applied to a race / intelligence question, it would be analogously invalid to look at facts about only Igbos, and extrapolate from that to conclusions about all Africans.

Since you're claiming that there is evidence that race determines some kind of achievement, I await your synopsis. It needn't be highly detailed, just detailed enough that you feel that you have represented the evidence well enough to make the case clear. You don't need to mention every point of fact, just the vital ones; then we can discuss your evidence and you can elaborate. For example, it may prove unnecessary to discuss the methods of computing cranial capacity. Just to give you a suggestion, chart 1 which you posted is a set of conclusions -- drawn on what basis? Then you need to look deeper into the methodology.

[softwareNerd]

How do you explain the other differences, though? Surely you don't think penis size, skeletal development, and 2-egg twinning levels are all determined by cultural reasons?

Obviously not, and I've never said and would never say that their genetic factors do not play a role in some type of "raw and pure processing power" of the brain. However, from my knowledge and observation, that type of capacity is a relatively minor contributor to IQ and scholastic achievement. It contributes near the extremes of such tests.

Firstly, in my previous note, I started with an important qualifier: "At least this page has an obvious problem...", to indicate that I had not read the report.

You mention that Rushton has established the correlation between IQ and brain-size. I am not disputing that at all. From his report, I assume that the relationship has been seen within cultural groups. So, the relationship is observed within the sub-group of 'ghetto blacks' [i.e. the correlation he speaks of is seen within this group, not across diverse groups], the correlation is again seen among (say) 'rich, white ivy-leaguers', and again within 'middle-class ivy-leaguers on scholarships'. Or, at the very least, he has used well-matched pairs for his sample, where the only significant difference was IQ.

Secondly, does he address the issue of whether brain size and number of neurons or whatever physical measure he is using grows with more usage of the brain? if there is some amount of correlation in that direction, then that needs to be factored in. Some body parts -- like muscles -- improve with use and training, so this is a pretty relevant factor to consider.

Also, the bit you quoted about correlation does not speak to the most important part, which might-- perhaps -- be elsewhere in the report. It addresses correlation, but not the extent to which it is a factor, the way the one-page above does. In other words, when done with factors of race and culture removed, how many IQ points do we see for each additional cc of brain-size?

Believe me, I have no PC agenda of asserting the absolute equality of the races. All I'm saying is that in my experience, the way IQ is measured and the way scholastic achievement is measured, the largest contributor is parental values and expectations in the earlier part of life, and individual values and individual history in the later parts.

As for IQ tests, sure they show something. My point in the previous post was that one can train for IQ tests, and that even when one does not train explicitly for the test, certain type of instruction train one for them. It is quite common for researchers to try to control for this , and to try to measure "raw" IQ by testing for it in very young children. That's the point I was making: that such observations in toddlers would be more convincing than observations of kids who've had a few years of schooling.

[Viking]

Okay: this means that tendency for sickle-cell anemia wouldn't be an example of "achievement", nor would hair texture. So in order to be taken seriously, you need to purge your consciousness of irrelevant distractions, such as the legendary penis size issue. Only consider facts that bear on achievement, in which case, size does not matter. (I invite you to refrain from engaging in tergiversions about "achievements", in this respect).Typically, people plug numbers into a well-engineered stats package. The validity of the mathematical inferences simply requires attention to the relationship between the sample that you base your inference on, and the population that the inference is claimed to be about. One such principle is that members of the population have the same chance of influencing the measurement. So if I were to ask 100 people in the neighborhood "Do you speak Norwegian, or Swedish", extrapolating to the world would result in the faulty conclusion that almost everybody speaks Norwegian and almost nobody speaks Swedish (despite there actually being about twice as many Swedish speakers as Norwegian speakers). Applied to a race / intelligence question, it would be analogously invalid to look at facts about only Igbos, and extrapolate from that to conclusions about all Africans.

I don't think these differences are irrelevant at all. Penis size for example, is correlated with high testosterone levels, which in turn is correlated with crime. This helps explain why 1 out of every 3 black males in the United States will go to Prison at one point in their lifetime, as I mentioned before.

As for that statistical problem, that is not the type of study that Rushton generally does. He takes random samples of blacks (so no specific subrace) from the US, all over Europe, etc. So applying it to black people would not be a problem, since he is testing a representative sample of blacks, not some wierd subrace.

Since you're claiming that there is evidence that race determines some kind of achievement, I await your synopsis. It needn't be highly detailed, just detailed enough that you feel that you have represented the evidence well enough to make the case clear. You don't need to mention every point of fact, just the vital ones; then we can discuss your evidence and you can elaborate. For example, it may prove unnecessary to discuss the methods of computing cranial capacity. Just to give you a suggestion, chart 1 which you posted is a set of conclusions -- drawn on what basis? Then you need to look deeper into the methodology.

Alright, lets consider IQ again.

If you look at page 23, you will find average IQ's for the races. U.S. Blacks at 85, Whites at 100, and Orientals at 106. There are tons of sources showing these same numbers, so I'll assume you don't want to debate veracity of these numbers.

Ok, no problem, you say, this can be explained by cultural reason #2123, etc, it is not genetic.

But if that is true, how would you explain the "trans-racial adoption studies" bit on page 30?

The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed- race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.

One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr's Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed- race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.

In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).

At age seven, Black, Mixed- race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed- race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.

The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed- race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

When Sandra Scarr got the results of her follow-up study at age 17, she changed her mind about the cause of why the Blacks and Whites differed. She wrote, "those adoptees with two African American birth parents had IQs that were not notably higher than the IQ scores of Black youngsters reared in Black families." Growing up in a White middle-class home produced little or no lasting increase in the IQs of Black children.

Some psychologists disagreed with her. They claimed "expectancy effects," not genes, explained the pattern. They argued that the Black and White children were not treated the same. Even if parents took good care of their children, the schools, classmates, and society as a whole discriminated against Black children and this hurt their IQs. Because we expected Black children to do poorly in school, they lived up to our low expectations.

Is there any way to decide between the genetic theory and the expectancy theory? There is. A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed- race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed- race children was just about the same as for other Mixed- race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed- race children thought their babies really had two Black parents.

Chart 9 summarizes the results for Oriental children adopted into White middle-class homes. Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study also showed that there are race differences in personality. Black 17-year-olds were more active and more disruptive than White 17-year-olds. Korean children raised in White American families were quieter and less active than White children.

This clearly shows that the IQ differences are not cultural, or based on expectations, etc...it is genetic.

[Viking]

Believe me, I have no PC agenda of asserting the absolute equality of the races. All I'm saying is that in my experience, the way IQ is measured and the way scholastic achievement is measured, the largest contributor is parental values and expectations in the earlier part of life, and individual values and individual history in the later parts.

What do you think of the "trans-racial adoption studies" I linked above?

------

Also, @everyone, sorry if you think I'm quoting Rushton too much. There is two reasons for that, 1) I've been really busy lately, and 2) I believe he sums it up quite well.