Matthew Yglesias (November 30, 2007) - Nathaniel Weyl (Culture)

Now look what you've done. Now the standard nut squad is going to fill up yet another comment stack on why Mugabe's Zimbabwe shows that the black Africans etc. etc. etc. But you knew that, didn't you?

Posted by El Cid | November 30, 2007 6:12 PM

I am with Jona Lucianne on this. If X is associated with same things that Y is, it does not mean that X and Y are the same things. Or some such nonsense.

Posted by gregor | November 30, 2007 6:12 PM

I look forward to the flame war which ensues when Sailer appears with his petrol-soaked crosses and pulls out his dummy.

"MaAAAatheeEEEWww, whyyyyyyy won't you ever comment on how James Watson lost his job, you nasty, nasty man?!? If you don't, I'm going to cut and paste more infantile ravings from John Derbyshire! Waah, waah, waah."

Posted by C. Rick | November 30, 2007 6:17 PM

If you look at Saletan's apology, you'll see that he's merely apologizing for quoting a racist, not for spouting racist nonsense himself. This is the way it works. Once these race "scientists" express their racism too inelegantly, they get dropped - until a bit of time passes and they can be quoted again.

Posted by politicalfootball | November 30, 2007 6:20 PM

Certainly, because Weyl was an obvious racist, that does not mean his views on race are to be discounted.

Posted by rickm | November 30, 2007 6:22 PM

Jesus, Matt, you are just descending further into the fever swamps of know-nothingness.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 6:32 PM

A reader asked me recently how well represented Italian-Americans are in science.

I finally realized I could simply look up the answer in Nathaniel Weyl's endlessly fascinating 1989 book Geography of American Achievement, which compares ethnic surnames from various reference books listing different kinds of big shots compared to the total number of those surnames on the Social Security rolls in 1984. We can't identify every surname by ethnicity but we can know that just about everybody named, say, "Caruso" is descended from Italians in at least the direct male line, while somebody named "Weber" has a German name.

In the 1985 book listing 127,000 American Men and Women of Science, people with ten specific Italian surnames were represented only 54% as often as their fraction of the total American population. However, in a more elite book listing 16,700 prominent scientists, Frontier Science and Technology, Italians were 98% of the average.

So, that may suggest that Italian-American culture isn't as science-oriented as the American average, but that those Italians who do go into science do just as well as the national average.

In case you were wondering about other ethnic groups based on characteristic surnames, here are some (but not all) of the groups as of the mid-1980s, with the national average as 100. The broader database of professional scientists listed first and the more elite listing of top scientists second:

Broad Elite
Sikhs 736 757
Chinese 620 784
Jews 424 592
Other Indians 381 573
Japanese 351 391
Swedes 141 176
Germans 140 138
Hungarians 117 145
English 111 93
Norwegians 98 68
Scots 96 97
Slavs 82 41
Irish 77 68
French 60 77
Spanish/Hispanic 6 NA

Yes, this isn't a perfect methodology (e.g., not all "Singhs" are Sikhs), but it's quite a lot better than you might think. For a discussion of methodological details, see

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/whos-who-in-science.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 6:38 PM

Certainly, because Weyl was an obvious racist, that does not mean his views on race are to be discounted.

Gould made this point. Human equality is a contingent fact of history, he said. It didn't have to be true.

Weyl/Saletan/Murray's views should be discounted because they are demonstrably ludicrous. On the other hand, those views are also loathed because they are loathsome.

Posted by politicalfootball | November 30, 2007 6:40 PM

"Other Indians"

Gotta love it! Hey Stevie! Did you know that the British called a big, diverse, arbitrarily defined area India! Yes they did! Where are the Pakistani's on that list? Or was this before 1947?

Posted by Rickm | November 30, 2007 6:41 PM

politicalfootball-

That was a joke. Its not your fault that it wasn't obviously a joke--these wackos are really really difficult to parody.

Posted by Rickm | November 30, 2007 6:43 PM

I don't know about IQ, but in the much easier to quantify field of athletics there are some pretty obvious race-related genetics at play.

Posted by Joe | November 30, 2007 6:44 PM

Sailer beautifully and hilariously illustrates my point.

Posted by politicalfootball | November 30, 2007 6:44 PM

The funny thing is, as soon as I started reading that excerpt, I was like "this sounds like something that could have been in National Review."

Posted by Steve | November 30, 2007 6:46 PM

This is a really, really stupid argument, Matt.

A. Weyl died a couple of years ago at age 94 in beautiful Ojai, CA. Do _you_ expect to be widely remembered 96 years after your birth by your ideological opponents?

B. There are a number of scientific geniuses, such as Ronald A. Fisher, who aren't publicized today as widely as their contribution to the human sciences would suggest because political correctness has such a hammerlock on intellectual discourse today. Weyl was hardly in Fisher's class (who is?), nor in that of, say, Sir Francis Galton or Carleton Coon, but to say that politically incorrect thinkers of the past aren't widely remembered today is merely to say that we live in an age distorted by political correctness.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 6:50 PM

As you say, Rickm, there is no parodying these guys.

In fact, what you said resembles what I would ask Saletan: If you aren't going to disavow the "science," why are you disavowing the "scientist"?

Posted by politicalfootball | November 30, 2007 6:50 PM

I don't usually pay much attention to racialist stuff, so I've always allowed at least the possibility that there may be some kernel of truth in all this, even if it's stretched ludicrously out of porportion. But since I now know that taking names as if from out of a phone book and speculating on the ethnicity of those individuals is considered a valid technique for collecting data in this field, I can go back to my default position of obliviousness and general disbelief.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 30, 2007 6:54 PM

If one follows the links far enough, one comes across this interesting tidbit:

"According to [Weyl's stepdaughter],in later life Mr. Weyl moderated his conservative views, and voted for Bill Clinton and John Kerry."

Posted by James Kabala | November 30, 2007 6:57 PM

This is a good example of a central aspect of the Bell Curve wars. On one side are people who do research, and on the other side are people who don’t do any research but instead just make snide comments about the people who actually do the research.

In other words, one side is on the side of discovering knowledge and the other side favors covering knowledge up.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 7:00 PM

I am not a genetics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that there is such a thing as sound racial science. Black people are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, and that's genetic. Ashkenazim are more likely that carry Tay-Sachs, and that's genetic. Study of the genetic differences in various racial groups that go beyond melanin production differences, hair texture, facial structure, and other such obvious differences has been and will no doubt continue to be a fruitful field of study.

But, while genetic differences can subtly affect brain function, and while these brain-affecting genetic differences may be racially correlated, the science on these matters just isn't very good. Some day, it may be. Right now, it isn't. You have these race scientists saying "well, adjusting for income, you find that American blacks are somewhat less intelligent than American whites, albeit by a factor smaller than that by which Arkansans are less intelligent than Massachusans, and by a smaller factor than Americans today are smarter than Americans three generations ago, and the gap between black and white intelligence has closed dramatically, but look! We've found a difference in some gene which codes for a protein involved in brain function which has a mutation in whites that makes it more efficient! Granted, there have been a few other genetic differences found that show the whites have a different mutation in another code for a protein involved in brain function that probably makes that protein function worse, but on the strength of empirical observation of existing intelligence difference, I think we can say that the balance of genetic differences weighs.... hey! Come back here!"

Posted by Julian Elson | November 30, 2007 7:08 PM

Matt really seems to have struck a Sailer nerve on this one, for some reason.

It's amusing that a guy counting up how many names in the phone book end in a vowel can think of himself as the next Galileo. Away, ye heretics!

Posted by Steve | November 30, 2007 7:09 PM

This is a good example of a central aspect of the Bell Curve wars. On one side are people who do research, and on the other side are people who don’t do any research but instead just make snide comments about the people who actually do the research.

In other words, one side is on the side of discovering knowledge and the other side favors covering knowledge up.

Posted by Steve Sailer

You got it. 100%. Nailed it. The only people who critiqued the Bell Curve were anti-science non-researchers. Not a single real research scientist working on related fields -- I mean, you can't required that they be scientists specifically working on IQ issues, as that would be selecting on the dependent variable, right? -- ever thought the Bell Curve "research" was unhelpful or unscientific.

Right?

Posted by El Cid | November 30, 2007 7:10 PM

Steve: what you fail to realize is that history is a form of knowledge just as much as psychology. The tawdry history of race science is one reason people are wary of it.

For more on Weyl see Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education by John P. Jackson, Jr. (New York University Press).

Many of the figures discussed in Jackson's book show up in the footnotes of The Bell Curve.

One interesting tidbit is that Weyl was considered a bit of a moderate among the race science people because he thought that miscegenation wasn't always a bad thing. He spent some time in Latin America and maybe had a case of jungle fever.

Posted by Jeet Heer | November 30, 2007 7:10 PM

Matt,

Is this a parody posting?

Is Zimbabwe really the place where you want to make your stand?

Anyway, you and Heer are totally missing the point of the quote from Weyl: he's arguing that white Rhodesians were on average superior in intellect to _white Britons_. There was a certain amount of evidence for this, just as, say, there's evidence that 17th Century British settlers in Massachusetts were on average an intellectually select group compared to 17th Century British settlers in the South. (See "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fisher]. But, it's now all lost in the mists of time as white Rhodesians have mostly been ethnically cleansed, with famously positive results for the well-being of the blacks of Zimbabwe.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 7:20 PM

Wow, SS (say, that's got a nice ring to it) is really agitated here.

100 years ago, white supremacy was universal. 50 years ago, it was respectable. Now it's almost copletely discredited, except for a few cranks. Your side just keeps losing, SS. Ever wonder why that is?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 30, 2007 7:28 PM

Which side has the passion on this issue? The left. Sailer seems to have the facts on his side, but I don't care much either way, but MY and CT and the rest can't stop arguing about it. Which side is more likely to be objective? By the way, Saletan's apology was really weeny.

Posted by bjk | November 30, 2007 7:33 PM

BTW, I think that researchers in the "race and intelligence" field are hardly the only ones who are working in a field where the science isn't very strong. String theorists' work isn't offensive or "politically incorrent," but it's hardly firmly grounded in empirical science either. Maybe someday it will be. Probably 40% of economics is similar -- the result of a lot of earnest effort which can't find its feet planted in sound real world evidence.

However, claims of the "black people are less intelligent" sort have the triple disadvantages of lacking scientific support and of being offensive and of being used in service of an elitist agenda which basically wants to restore hereditary aristocracy (which will not benefit most people of any

Posted by Julian Elson | November 30, 2007 7:35 PM

Sailer's nonsense about Italians in the phonebooks aside, he's right that all Weyl's doing in the linked article is comparing white Africans to white Londoners. Pretty weak stuff to get all hot and bothered about.

Although his comments about beatniks are pretty funny.

Posted by right | November 30, 2007 7:37 PM

Steve: Is Weyl really where YOU want to make YOUR stand?

Because the question isn't whether white Rhodesians were smarter than white Britons. The question is, are "beatniks, transvestites and obvious homosexuals" inherently likely to have low IQs? Because that is what Weyl was suggesting in the passage I quoted. And none of Weyl's other political writings and race science from the 1960s holds up any better than this passage. I invite readers to look up Weyl's impassioned defenses of aparteid in Africa and school segregation in the United States.

Posted by Jeet Heer | November 30, 2007 7:40 PM

Hmm... must have failed to include a greater than sign when I closed my italics, or something.

(which will not benefit most people of any race) based on conservative policies like abolition of inheritance taxation combined with an ideology of exaggeration of heritable ability. String theorists may have a tough time backing up their work with empirical evidence, but at least they (usually) don't go off about how string theory proves that poor people are poor thanks to genetic inferiority, and that they and all their descendents will always be and deserve to be poor.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 30, 2007 7:42 PM

Speaking of who gets forgotten because of political correctness, here's the opening to the Wikipedia article on Ronald A. Fisher:

"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) was an English statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. He was described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

The reason you don't hear much about Fisher, whose contributions to multiple fields are reminiscent of Newton's, is because he was a eugenicist.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 7:45 PM

Note, please, that one of Weyl's leading criteria for the genetic superiority of Rhodesian whites was that they had no "beatniks" or homosexuals -- that is, they were genetically Manly Men and lacked pinkos. I really would advise Sailer not to nail his already silly banner to this particular raft.

As for his dragging out the idiotic line that to criticize Ian Smith & Co. is to idolize Mugabe: what an interesting coincidence. TNR has a pointed comment out today on National Review's willingness to do exactly the same thing in its obituary for Smith ( http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/11/30/national-review-and-ian-smith.aspx ) -- although in fairness it's less directly repulsive than NR's tearful 1989 eulogy for the late Ferdinand Marcos ("a sentimental glad-hander").

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 30, 2007 7:50 PM

Maybe the reason you don't 'hear much about Fisher' is that very few people hear anything about anyone who contributed to the rise of modern statistics, and there are maybe two or three names that people are familiar with in the actual field of genetics. Maybe.

A lot of people have heard of Newton, even though he was also into alchemy.

Posted by El Cid | November 30, 2007 7:52 PM

A lot of string theorists are rather up front that they aren't really sure what they're talking about at this point because it's nearly impossible to perform the necessary tests economically with current technology. They admit that no one in the world actually understands string theory, but studying it can potentially unlock doors like we've never seen in scientific research. Meanwhile, losers like SS waste their lives going through phone books. Maybe all of that time in foster care meant SS didn't get hugged enough as a child.

Posted by Reality Man | November 30, 2007 8:02 PM

El Cid makes a good point. By the standards of our time, Newton was a massive crackpot, as John Maynard Keynes discovered to his horror when he bought a trunk of Newton's private papers that had been kept locked up for two centuries. In his prime, Newton may have spent more time on medieval stuff like alchemy and "Bible Code" stuff like decoding God the Father's secret messages to him in scriptures.

This is all very interesting, but in the big picture, it's not important that Newton shared in many of the prejudices of his youth. He pushed back the frontiers of ignorance as much as anybody ever. Similarly, what matters about Weyl is that he invented a useful system that expands our understanding of American ethnic patterns -- an infinitesimal contribution compared to Newton's, but a contribution nonetheless. In contrast, quoting a sentence from an article and then dismissing him is just petty and ignorant.

Matt, why do you want to humiliate yourself like this?

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 8:12 PM

For what it's worth, I googled "famous statisticians" and the 2nd link from the top was to the University of South Australia offering students in Introductory Statistics a choice of 8 biographies to click on of "Portraits of some famous statisticians."

The photos are arranged in 2 rows of 4. The top left position, which most people might consider to be "first" in the sense of reading left to right and top to bottom, is held by none other than Sir Ronald Fisher.

The other 7 include names which likely very few outside statistics work and education might know, except perhaps Gauss, whose achievements in mathematics are often considered the greatest since the ancient Greeks, and maybe Galton -- yet given Galton's history as a eugenicist that would tend to also weaken the argument that Fisher's work is unknown due to his eugenicist views.

The other 7:

Karl Pearson; Williams Gosset; William Cochran; Abraham De Moivre; Carl Gauss; Gertrude Cox; Francis Galton.

http://www.roma.unisa.edu.au/10920/statist.htm

Posted by El Cid | November 30, 2007 8:16 PM

Steve Sailer's "people who do research" are morons who don't know that

f[Average{a,b,c,...}] != Average{ f[a],f[b],f[c],... } where f[x] is a non-linear function of x.

Posted by Arun | November 30, 2007 8:22 PM

The history of modern statistics is intimately tied to the eugenics movement: Galton, Pearson, and Fisher from your list of the top 8 statisticians were all enthusiastic supporters of eugenics.

Galton (Darwin's half cousin), who invented regression analysis as well as much else, is almost universally denounced today as if his life consisted of nothing but coining the word "eugenics." A rare exception was a recent Jim Holt article in The New Yorker that was much fairer:

“It took Galton nearly two decades to work out the subtleties of regression, an achievement that, according to Stephen M. Stigler, a statistician at the University of Chicago, ‘should rank with the greatest individual events in the history of science—at a level with William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood and with Isaac Newton’s of the separation of light.’”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/24/050124crbo_books

But, I forgot, the Anti-Reality Based Community doesn't like statistics.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 8:25 PM

Yeah. Sid is right: R.A. Fisher is routinely honored as one of the greatest statisticians in history. Sailer is blowing crap out of his ass when he says "we don't hear much about Fisher" any more. (Fisher was a hateful reactionary, but in the history of statistics he gets his due.)

Posted by Matt Stevens | November 30, 2007 8:27 PM

I lived in Rhodesia for a year in the 1970s (travelling in Africa, ran out of money, having white skin made me qualified as a "skilled worker" even though I actually couldn't do anything that a lot of black/coloured locals couldn't have done better or cheaper.)

Mental giants would not be the first phrase that comes to mind to describe the white population, though they certainly were a strapping healthy bunch.

Posted by MikeN | November 30, 2007 8:29 PM

The point about Fisher is that he wasn't just a statistician, just as Newton wasn't just a mathematician. He developed the mathematics of statistics in order to advance genetics, evolutionary theory, medical research, and agricultural science.

From a 21st Century perspective in terms of what the hot sciences are today, he might, arguably, be more important than Einstein. (Okay, I won't make that argument, but I think you could make a respectable case for a few minutes before eventually losing the argument ...)

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 8:31 PM

man, i only took one stats course in college, but i remember hearing about fisher. he gets plenty of props.
this crap about fisher being shunned because he was such a brave, brave racist, is just pure victimology.

so in other words, this is another false claim from sailer.

you know, sometimes i think sailer must be a plant. he makes the racist side look *so pathetic* that he sets back their cause every time he opens his mouth.

which, on the whole, is an improvement in public discourse. but rather painful to have to sit through.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 30, 2007 8:39 PM

Yes, Fisher was a eugenicist, just as Newton believed in alchemy. That doesn't mean statisticians have to be eugenicists, any more than physicists have to work on Philosopher Stones in their spare time. Fisher, like many people, was too enamored of cranky ideas that were fashionable when he was a young man. It happens.

Posted by Matt Stevens | November 30, 2007 8:44 PM

Since Sailer's original argument -- that Fisher is shunned today because of political correctness -- has been shown to be meritless, he apparently now is arguing (in his 8:31 comment) that Fisher should be recognized today for his greatness as a eugenicist? Good grief.

Posted by Steve V | November 30, 2007 8:45 PM

it is weird.
sometimes you want to ask:
"steve, why do you want to humiliate yourself like this?"

but then your realize--oh, that's right:
it's probably because he realizes at some level that he's a repellent racist fuck who deserves humiliation.

indeed, the desire to humiliate himself may be one of sailer's few genuinely *decent* impulses.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 30, 2007 9:07 PM

Yes, great scientists sometimes believed wacky stuff. And yes, their actual contributions are honored in a way that their wacky beliefs are not. Watson will always be remembered for his science, and his lunacy will be left behind. What's the big mystery here?

Is Sailer bringing up Newton because he wants to rehabilitate the reputation of alchemy?

Posted by politicalfootball | November 30, 2007 9:21 PM

You know, if you want to argue that your genetics make you part of some "master race," it's best not to show yourself to be an idiot.

Posted by Reality Man | November 30, 2007 9:36 PM

"Matt, why do you want to humiliate yourself like this?"

OH, THE HUMANITY! What a world, what a world...

Posted by Rihilism | November 30, 2007 9:45 PM

Yawn. Yet another Yglesias post that boils down to, "Hey look! This obvious racist claimed to be doing science! Therefore, the scientific investigation of racial differences in intelligence is junk!"

You need a new talking point.

Posted by Robins | November 30, 2007 10:07 PM

Julian Elson,

However, claims of the "black people are less intelligent" sort have the triple disadvantages of lacking scientific support

On the contrary, there is considerable scientific evidence, in the form of reams of intelligence test data, that, to use your crude phrasing, "black people are less intelligent." There is also evidence that the causes of that difference are genetic as well as environmental.

But, while genetic differences can subtly affect brain function

"Subtly?" A single mutation can produce major cognitive impairment.

Posted by Robins | November 30, 2007 10:20 PM

MikeN writes of his year in Rhodesia: "Mental giants would not be the first phrase that comes to mind to describe the white population, though they certainly were a strapping healthy bunch."

Yes, that makes more sense -- white Rhodesians certainly grew up being better fed than white Britons back home, so they tended to be bigger and healthier. Whether they were an intellectually selected bunch (like the Puritan settlers of the 1630s were) is far more speculative and doubtful.

Thanks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 10:34 PM

he's arguing that white Rhodesians were on average superior in intellect to _white Britons_. There was a certain amount of evidence for this

Apparently, for example, the lack of beatniks amongst the white rhodesian population.

I finally realized I could simply look up the answer in Nathaniel Weyl's endlessly fascinating 1989 book Geography of American Achievement, which compares ethnic surnames from various reference books listing different kinds of big shots compared to the total number of those surnames on the Social Security rolls in 1989

Even in your blogpost, Steve, this turns out to have precious little to do with genetics within those populations. And I can make a safe bet about this because I am in a nuclear family of scientists, and my grandparents and extended family are/were shopkeepers and factory workers and farmers.

Posted by Tyro | November 30, 2007 10:45 PM

The point is, as DeLong mentioned a few days ago, that those "tests" are bunk. They obviously measure culture (which is deep and complex) rather than "intelligence"- which is even MORE complex.

Posted by M. Carey | November 30, 2007 10:46 PM

"man, i only took one stats course in college, but i remember hearing about fisher. he gets plenty of props."

_Of course_, Ronald Fisher gets huge credit in statistics courses, and in genetics courses, and in evolutionary theory courses. He was one of the top half dozen or so scientists of the 20th Century.

But in the media, he is almost ignored. Compare Fisher's media rep to Stephen Jay Gould's, the conventional wisdom's idea of a great scientist.

Here's an assessment of Gould's value from a very intelligent amateur student of evolutionary theory. I'll put his name at the end of the paragraph:

"And I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking. Well, the same is true in evolution. I am not sure how well this is known. I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is bevolved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there."

From -- WHAT ECONOMISTS CAN LEARN FROM EVOLUTIONARY THEORISTS
(A talk given to the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy)
Paul Krugman
Nov. 1996
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/evolute.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 30, 2007 10:55 PM

M Carey,

You and DeLong don't know what you're talking about. As the American Psychological Association put it in its report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns:

The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support.

Posted by Robins | November 30, 2007 10:56 PM

All I see is a desperate Lefty attempt to deny their "all races are equal in every way since race is artifical, and dissimilar outcomes only due to racism" ideology is on the way out.

Hence Marxist slurs to motive and character of anyone that disagrees with them - and the old Soviet technique of attributing mental problems to its critics. (More chilling in those days because the Soviet branch of Jewish psychiatry gave a wonderful extrajudicial way to get rid of dissent - just label critics as "political football" does with terms like whacky, lunacy, insane, divorced from reality..." and so on.

The fun thing is that Lefties are powerless. All the science on Man's genomes and the history of their origins is going full steam ahead - because the potential for getting rid of bad genomes and acquiring good ones is too valuable to ignore. Even in PC Europe and Commonwealth nations such as NZ and Canada. Past Lefty arguments about race only being skin color are laughed off outside professional humanities people obligated to spout 60s rhetoric about how soon independent black nations and black self rule would elevate blacks civilizations to meet or succeed white or Asian examples. Who were also crippled by the "legacy" of racism, repression, and colonialism.

40-60 years later, the reality is black fuck-ups from black majority Mexican towns to barbarous black majority Banieuls in France, to Congolese eating one another, to Rhodesia reverted to savagery, to the US NOLA example.

Zimbabwe is just another black societal failure. As expected by realists - as NOLA was.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 1, 2007 12:02 AM

Yawn. Yet another Yglesias post that boils down to, "Hey look! This obvious racist claimed to be doing science! Therefore, the scientific investigation of racial differences in intelligence is junk!"
You need a new talking point.
Posted by Robins

LOL!

At least he is better than the ideologue Lefties that claim blacks dominate sprint events only because whites and Asians lack the drive to be coached and escape poverty by running fast in a straight line with nice sneakers on.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 1, 2007 12:15 AM

Shorter Chris Ford: Seig heil!

I know, Godwin's Law violation, but damn, I think he's the exception that proves the rule.

Posted by DMonteith | December 1, 2007 12:32 AM

Wow, I thought people were being pretty nasty and unfair to Sailer in the other threads, but now he's exhibiting all the signs of an internet crank.

Posted by farrington | December 1, 2007 1:11 AM

Weyl was the son of Walter Weyl, a founder of The New Republic. As a young man he was prominent in the Student League for Industrial Democracy, & during the Depression he was one of the few people from prominent families to drift into the Communist Party. He subsequently testified he was in the same Party cell as Alger Hiss. He held positions in the federal government until his Party membership was exposed during the Truman administration. After his encounter with McCarthyism, he turned to the radical right. He was involved in covert propaganda & disinformation campaigns against Castro. But his real life's work revolved around the defense of so-called scientific racism. He was a regular contributor to The Mankind Quarterly, the main organ of the loose international network of unrepentant ideologues & discredited scientists (including leading Nazi racial scientists) who continued to defend racism during the postwar heyday of racial liberalism. Altogether a fascinating, repulsive character.

Posted by KH | December 1, 2007 1:29 AM

Weyl was also a cousin of Theodore Lit, senior editor at the Conservative Book Club.

Posted by KH | December 1, 2007 1:33 AM

Weyl was also a cousin of Theodore Lit, senior editor at the Conservative Book Club.

Posted by KH | December 1, 2007 1:33 AM

In the cited article, Weyl stated that in Rhodesia
"the white minority must provide managerial, scientific, professional and intellectual leadership for the Africans as well as the Europeans." No doubt the blacks were very grateful.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 1, 2007 2:11 AM

Some truly excellent quote-trimming from Robins. Here's how he/she quotes the Intelligence report in question:

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support."

And here's the next two sentences from the report, emphasis added:

"There is certainly _no_ such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

Note that this is entirely consistent with M. Carey's claim above: the best current explanation of the test differences is broadly cultural. I would also note that the report is, by now, over ten years old; and it seems that the evidence since then has only continued to go in the direction of non-biological explanations. (E.g., Steele and Aronson's work on 'stereotype threat', which I do not think was considered in the report.)

A further note: the very existence of this report (and its bibliography) shows what utter wankitude is being committed by all those who claim that scientists refuse to talk about or consider hypotheses about race-based differences. There's oodles of work out there; it just doesn't point towards any claim of any inherent racial differences in intelligence.

Posted by philosopher | December 1, 2007 2:43 AM

Weyl was also a nephew of J David Stern, the owner, among other things, of the New York Post - then a leading supporter of FDR -, for which Weyl briefly worked as a young man.

He co-wrote The Geography of Intellect (1963), which promulgated a racial theory of history, with Stefan Possony, who is also now mostly forgotten, but at the time was one of the leading foreign policy theorists of the emerging US right.

One of his 'scientific' theories: Arabs are racially inferior because they smoke so much marijuana, which causes genetic damage.

Another: Proust was homosexual, which because his mother was frightened by the Paris Commune. Also, Raul Castro is a transvestite. And we must struggle against the malign influence of the 'Homintern.' So it's wasn't just in Rhodesia that he was vigilant against sexual deviancy.

Weyl maintained a hearty interest in US efforts to subvert Castro.
Within hours after JFK's assassination, he told the press that there was secret proof that Castro did it. In 1961 he'd collaborated with a man named John Martino on a book, I Was Castro's Prisoner, which cast the Cuban government in a suitably negative light, but neglected to mention that Martino was a mafioso working for Santos Trafficante. Weyl also collaborated with William Pawley, another shady character, on Cuban affairs.

Posted by KH | December 1, 2007 2:51 AM

For those claiming that anti-racist arguments are Marxist just show how little they know of what "Marxism" means. Read what Marx wrote on the non-Western world, such as China. The man definitely was a racist who saw Asians as inferior. In addition, Stalin's theories and policies with regard to race (which are still the basis of racial policy in China today) were highly racist. Their interpretations of humanity relied on much of the same pseudo-scientific nonsense as some people in this thread claim to be fact.

Posted by Reality Man | December 1, 2007 3:36 AM

"In the cited article, Weyl stated that in Rhodesia
"the white minority must provide managerial, scientific, professional and intellectual leadership for the Africans as well as the Europeans." No doubt the blacks were very grateful.""

From Matt Yglesias' favorite Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution on Wednesday:

""What can you even say at this point?
Tyler Cowen

"Zimbabwe's chief statistician says he cannot work out the rate of inflation because of the lack of goods in shops."

A joke from 21st Century Zimbabwe:

Q. "Mommy, what did we use before we had candles?"

A. "Electricity."

I think we have to consider the possibility that, by bringing up Rhodesia-Zimbabwe, Matt Yglesias is in parody mode, hoping to entrap his loyal commenters like this. Matt's post is indeed a perfect imitation of the virtually content-free methodology developed by Stephen Jay Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man" of compensating for his lack of facts to support his position by snarking about obscure figures from the past.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 1, 2007 3:51 AM

The fisking of Steve Sailor must be deemed a success, as he has stopped defending his laughable assertion that Fisher is ignored and has changed the subject to the failed Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe and to attacking Gould, the co-discoverer of punctuated equilibrium.

I'm a geneticist. My Ph.D. is in genetics. I've published in most of the journals that have some variant of "genetics" in their title. My papers have been cited by hundreds of other papers. I've been teaching genetics and molecular biology to graduate students and medical students for 20 years.

I'm impressed by the scientific literacy of those on this thread who have exposed the vacuity of Sailor's posts. I'll content myself with dealing with this piece of blather:

"All the science on Man's genomes and the history of their origins is going full steam ahead - because the potential for getting rid of bad genomes and acquiring good ones is too valuable to ignore."

There is not an atom of evidence for this assertion. The potential for selective breeding of humans is not now, nor has it ever been, a reason propelling the sequencing and analysis of the human genome.

"Past Lefty arguments about race only being skin color are laughed off outside professional humanities people obligated to spout 60s rhetoric about how soon independent black nations and black self rule would elevate blacks civilizations to meet or succeed white or Asian examples."

This statement is false and scientifically illiterate. What geneticists have laughed off for years is the notion that the word "race" is a useful way of describing genetic diversity in humans.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 7:02 AM

On one side are people who do research, and on the other side are people who don’t do any research but instead just make snide comments about the people who actually do the research.

Really playing fast and loose with that definition of research, eh? There's nothing scientific about using names from a book and assuming ethnicity. Couldn't he have done his study using living scientists whose ethnic makeup could have been, y'know, verified? Perhaps some sort of Herod-like decree against intellectuals was invoked the year of Weyl's work, limiting his pool of viable candidates -- God knows he wouldn't fall victim to such a purge.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 1, 2007 8:20 AM

In the same comment above from Mr. Sailer, we find a defense for the idea that Ronald Fisher and his work should be much more commonly known among the general public, and a condemnation of Stephen Jay Gould for writing works which make him well known by the general public.

Clearly the general public -- myself included -- chose wrongly when we chose to read accessible popular books on evolution and evolutionary history over The Collected Papers of R. A. Fisher when we were selecting reading material.

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 11:21 AM

Actually, in addition to the prominent place Fisher enjoys among scientist, there are also popular accounts of his contributions. One of the best is "The Lady Tasting Tea."

http://www.amazon.com/Lady-Tasting-Tea-Statistics-Revolutionized/dp/product-description/0716741067

Indeed, the title refers to an anecdote involving Fisher.

Fisher, like many scientist, had a foolish side. He avidly fought the idea that smoking causes cancer.

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

Of course, being a smoker himself, his denials were more than a little self-serving. Similarly, Fisher and white folks of his class at the time succumbed to self-serving argument to defend the economic and social status of whites. Fisher's mistakes about smoking and about eugenics do not overshadow his towering accomplishments in statistics. They merely reveal him to be fallable and thus human.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 11:43 AM

Joel, it's good to have an _actual_, rather than Sailer-approved, scientist here.

Sailer's position on racialist "science" is rather like that old saw about theology: the proving of that which is already believed.

Fortunately for Steve-O, and unfortunately for discourse ( the Soviet branch of "Jewish psychiatry"? What the fuck?!) Chris Ford makes him look reasonable and only a crypto-Third Reicher rather than an outright defender.

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 1, 2007 11:45 AM

Uh, "scientist" = "scientists"

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 11:45 AM

This debate is in desperate need of some patience. In five to ten years, sober, careful statisticians like James Flynn will look at population-wide distributions of genes discovered by neurobiologists (Eric Candell is my guess for the main contributor, but who knows), and bring some facts to the table.

Spending outrage to discredit the more wild-eyed of the racialists, like Sailor and Ford is A) redundant, and B)unrelated to the central question, which is whether there is a correlation between race and IQ. Zimbabwe's past and current plight is tragic, but it has nothing to do with IQ.

Finally, Joel, I have an unpleasant, lab-meeting ambush type counterpoint for you. I'm a biologist myself (at the bottom of the ladder, not nearly to your lofty heights) and it sounds from your self description like you are a molecular geneticist. That is Watson's field as well, and full of smart people, but it is not the same field as population genetics. It's not even in the same time zone. I'm sure you take considerable interest in the race/IQ debate, but you really don't bring more expertise to the table than any other well-educated layman. I apologize if I'm misreading your level of expertise, but this is the internet, and I'm habitually suspicious of argument by authority.

Posted by heedless | December 1, 2007 12:36 PM

Heedless-
You are still buying into the racialists assumptions. There is correlation between race and IQ--insofar as IQ is defined as the ability to do well on IQ tests. What the racialists argue is that these IQ tests do measure the statistical myth, g, and that this factor (which is a statistical myth) is correlated to certain genes, which, on average, appear more in jews than whites, and more in whites than blacks.

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 12:56 PM

" I apologize if I'm misreading your level of expertise, but this is the internet, and I'm habitually suspicious of argument by authority."

As well you should be.

" . . . you really don't bring more expertise to the table than any other well-educated layman."

Somehow I doubt this. I certainly have more expertise than anyone else in the department of my primary appointment (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology) and than most in the department of my secondary appointment (Pediatrics). The 63 yo cardiologist I ride with is well-educated but doesn't even know the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

But enough about me. Did you have a point?

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 1:01 PM

Now that Sikhs are revealed as the genetic élite of American science, where's the plot for Sikh world domination? After all, it's the only religion that requires men to carry little knives.

Posted by James Wimberley | December 1, 2007 1:03 PM

Rickm,

That's certainly part of the argument, but the central core of the Bell Curve argument is the heritability of IQ. What the racialists argue is that the heritability of IQ has a significant explanitory value in uderstanding "racial" differences in intellectual performance. To this geneticist, and to some educated laypersons, this argument is flawed. See here for a more thorough exposition (NB: not by me):

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 1:16 PM

"That is Watson's field as well . . . "

In human beings, the traits of high intelligence and good judgement are unlinked. Jim Watson is one illustration of this.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 1:19 PM

philosopher,

Note that this is entirely consistent with M. Carey's claim above: the best current explanation of the test differences is broadly cultural.

Er, the statement in the American Psychological Association report says nothing whatsoever to support your assertion that "the best current explanation of the test differences is broadly cultural." It explicitly states that the cause of the black-white differential is unknown.

In a study of expert opinion on the question among psychologists, educators, sociologists and cognitive scientists, a plurality (45%) responded that in their opinion the most likely cause of the black-white differential in intelligence test scores is both environmental and genetic factors. This is three times the number who believe that environmental factors alone account for the difference.

You also seem to have misunderstood the APA report's statement about evidence for genetic causes. The statement is only that there is no direct support of a genetic cause. This is so because scientists have not yet identified the genes that ordinarily influence intelligence and measured the relative incidence of those genes in different racial groups. But there is a significant body of indirect econometric evidence for genetic causes of intelligence differences between racial groups, such as the Minnesota transracial adoption study. A series of responses to the APA report published in American Psychologist criticized the APA authors for failing to examine this evidence in their report.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 1:51 PM

Does anyone know of a comparable survey of scientists belief in on why there exists a black-white gap in IQ that WASN'T conducted by editors at the National Review?

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 1:54 PM

Joel,

One would think a self-proclaimed PhD geneticist would know better than to think a blog post by a statistician with no recognized expertise in genetics or intelligence research constitutes any kind of serious rebuttal to scholarly opinion and published research by recognized experts in those fields. But I guess the emotional need to disparage the hypothesis of genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups is so strong in certain people that they will grasp at any straw.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 1:59 PM

Robins-

Its obvious that you did not read Cosma's post. Cosma talks about the statistical concept, g, and does not delve into any pyschological or cognitive aspects of IQ. So yes, Cosma, a statistician, should be poking holes in the statistical arguments of people who are distorting statistics to suit their goals.

Nice try tho.

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 2:04 PM

1. I'm not a "self-proclaimed" Ph.D. geneticist. My degree was awarded by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. I don't "proclaim," I just report.

2. I know enough genetics and statistics to understand the blog post that I linked to, and have read enough other published work on intelligence research to vouch for the accuracy of the linked post.

3. I guess your emotional need to defend the hypothesis of genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups is so strong that you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than, you know, actually reading the link and critiqueing its content.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 2:06 PM

"After his encounter with McCarthyism, he turned to the radical right."

I know this is off-subject, but why do so many of those guys go from far-left to far-right, whizzing by those of us in the Great Middle without so much as a tip of the hat and a howdy-do?

And Cronin is on target. Sailer should thank the gods above for the existence of Chris Ford, who is getting more deranged with each post.

Posted by Henderstock | December 1, 2007 2:15 PM

Joel,

1. I'm not a "self-proclaimed" Ph.D. geneticist.

So the post of 7:02am, containing the proclamation "I'm a geneticist. My Ph.D. is in genetics" wasn't written by you, but by an imposter falsely using the name "Joel," was it?

2. I know enough genetics and statistics to understand the blog post that I linked to, and have read enough other published work on intelligence research to vouch for the accuracy of the linked post.

The mere fact that you can understand the blog post you linked to is completely irrelevant to the questions at issue. Presumably, you can also understand the statement "The sky is green," but that doesn't make that assertion true or relevant, either.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 2:24 PM

I know this is off-subject, but why do so many of those guys go from far-left to far-right, whizzing by those of us in the Great Middle without so much as a tip of the hat and a howdy-do?

My guess is that part of it is an ego-driven fascination with being the center and the cause of 'the revolution,' from whichever provenance that 'revolution' may be, as well as a fascination with imagining oneself to be at the command of an authoritarian movement rather than being subject to one. Same with David Horowitz.

You could probably even speculate (or maybe there are real examples of which I'm unaware) how one could move from an authoritarian revolutionary position (i.e., 'I am part of the cadre which will lead it, shape it, direct it') to a formal radical anarchist or anti-authoritarian position, all the while still following rather authoritarian behavior patterns personally, but either it's rare or I've just missed all the cases.

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 2:25 PM

rickm,

Its obvious that you did not read Cosma's post. Cosma talks about the statistical concept, g, and does not delve into any pyschological or cognitive aspects of IQ.

It's obvious from this absurd statement that you have not read the post. You need only look at the seven numbered points in the author's "Conclusion" section to see that he is making all sorts of assertions about the "cognitive and psychological" aspects of IQ. He has no recognized expertise in this field.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 2:32 PM

El Cid, 6:12pm "Now look what you've done. Now the standard nut squad is going to fill up yet another comment stack on why Mugabe's Zimbabwe shows that the black Africans etc. etc. etc. But you knew that, didn't you?"

Steve Sailer, 7:20pm: "Is Zimbabwe really the place where you want to make your stand? . . .But, it's now all lost in the mists of time as white Rhodesians have mostly been ethnically cleansed, with famously positive results for the well-being of the blacks of Zimbabwe."

And I'm not going to quote Chris Ford's ravings. Although Chris, you have a spelling error in your 12:02 post. I know it's difficult, and you did a good job with the onset and suffix, but it's rACist, not rEAList. Keep trying, though - I'm sure you'll get it!

"Maybe all of that time in foster care meant SS didn't get hugged enough as a child."

I don't know anything about Sailer's personal history, but if he was in foster care this is really kinda un-called for. Lord knows there's no shortage of crap to criticize him for . . .

"Weyl was hardly in Fisher's class (who is?), nor in that of, say, Sir Francis Galton or Carleton Coon"

For example, his embrace of antique racists and eugenicists (not that some of them didn't make genuine and significant contributions, but the comparison would be with praise for equally accomplished non-racist/non-eugenicist scientists.). BTW, Steve, what's your opinion of Eugen Fischer? His work certainly had, shall we say, far-reaching effects. Although to be fair, it was vastly inferior even to Coon's stuff. Must say that I'm amazed - although not really surprised - that Derbyshire and now apparently Sailer are big Coon fans. (In terms of actual science, as opposed to racist babble, I think Coon might be best known (besides as an embarrassing leftover from anthropology's earlier days, like an decrepit and now-deceased elderly uncle who couldn't stop ranting about 'lesser races' in public) as a kinda-proponent of multiregionalism, which has not fared well lately. I wonder when folks are going to start attempting to rehabilitate Madison Grant? Although last time I looked through the Amazon.com reviews for The Passing of the Great Race, a fair number of folks seemed to be trying . . .

"There are a number of scientific geniuses, such as Ronald A. Fisher, who aren't publicized today as widely as their contribution to the human sciences would suggest because political correctness [blah blah blah . . .]"

Not to beat a dead eugenicist (it's messy - they smell bad, and bits of putrefying flesh end up flying everywhere), but it's not like Sewall Wright or J. B. S. Haldane are exactly household names. (Although anyone with quotes like "the [ear]drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhat deaf, one can blow tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a social accomplishment", not to mention the marvelous if possibly apocryphal "inordinate fondness for beetles" bit, really should be better known . . .)
Really, just fleshing out an earlier comment by El Cid - talk about a man who knows how to stay on a horse!

"Swedes 141 176
Norwegians 98 68"

Well, that's interesting. And not surprising, given that these populations have been separated for over 20,000 years and faced with wildly different selective pressures - right? And look at the Irish scores - clear evidence of partly-genetically race-based intellectual inferiority. (At least they can take solace in their doubtlessly genetically-based facility with music and rhyme). Seems like the original Know-Nothings - virulent nativists especially opposed to Irish Catholic immigrants - had a point. And what about that pathetic Slavic showing? Guess the folks who went on and on a century ago about how Poles and Russians were intellectually unsuited for the demands of American life were on to something . . .
(I don't need sarcasm tags, right?)

"the 'Homintern.'"

Ok, that's funny.

"Steve: what you fail to realize is that history is a form of knowledge just as much as psychology."
That's very nicely phrased, Jeet.

"The tawdry history of race science is one reason people are wary of it"

Indeed, and across all of its branches, too. Rhodesia in 1967 may have been lacking in obvious homosexuals, beatniks, etc., but there were no shortage of people insisting that the ruins of Great Zimbabwe hadn't - couldn't - have been built by black people (a 19th century view that had been pretty badly debunked decades before). Likewise with the 19th century insistence that the large earthen mounds European settlers encountered across much of the interior Eastern US couldn't have been built by Indians, but a mysterious lost race, the Mound Builders, who might even had been ancient but highly civilized Europeans who put up a noble resistance but were finally, brutally overrun by the savages (providing a convenient justification, of course, for brutal dispossession).

To a large extent, the history of racist ideology is of obsessive repetition, of an endless revisiting of certain themes. It's certainly not irrelevant that many of the claims being made about race and IQ are all-too-reminiscent of earlier baseless and deeply harmful claims throughout American history, often about black people but also other groups now generally seen as white-and-right. That in itself doesn't prove that such current claims are wrong, but in the absence of a clear scientific consensus, especially when clear political agendas are involved, and for those of us who aren't genuine experts in the various relevant fields, it's really bloody suggestive. (Indeed, I'll amuse myself by suggesting a slightly-over a decade media cycle to these claims, at least since 1980 (that is, 1980, supposedly Jensen's book about testing bias - 1994, The Bell Curve, 2007, Little Lord Saletan's ramblings . . . Mrs. S. suggests that it's just how long it takes for people to forget - I'd also look to the political environment - of course, this is a very limited sample: we'll see how things go in the early 2020s).

"but at least they (usually) don't go off about how string theory proves that poor people are poor thanks to genetic inferiority, and that they and all their descendents will always be and deserve to be poor."

No doubt someone, somewhere, will. (or if not that, something about how quantum vibrations prove this . . .)

"and of being used in service of an elitist agenda which basically wants to restore hereditary aristocracy "

Really, it always seem to come out this way, regardless. For example, you had Murray arguing in Losing Ground that programs which helped poor, often brown people were bad because these programs - not (environmental or genetic) racial differences - were messing people up. Except that then they weren't, 'cause you had Murray arguing a few years later in The Bell Curve that programs which helped poor, often brown people were bad because it actually was genetic (or perhaps environmental, "it matters little") differences that were messing people up (and indeed, such programs were increasing 'dysgenic' pressure by encouraging the "wrong women" to have babies).

"Spending outrage to discredit the more wild-eyed of the racialists, like Sailor and Ford is A) redundant, and B)unrelated to the central question, which is whether there is a correlation between race and IQ."

Perhaps, but this misses the political reality, which is that mainstreaming racialist thinking has real policy implications - despite the fact that these implications don't follow at all logically even if Rushton et al's wildest dreams (which - well, let's not get into that . . .) were reality. (After all, they only publicly claim a (relatively) small effect for supposedly genetically-based racial differences, leaving still quite a lot of room for social/ cultural/ environmental effects. Which of course does nothing to stop certain folks from going on about how if the 'race scientists [sic]' are right, then we should get rid of affirmative action, and any other suspicion of discrimination, etc.

"In a study of expert opinion on the question among psychologists, educators, sociologists and cognitive scientists,"

Robins, would you care to tell the class when this study was conducted?

"I know this is off-subject, but why do so many of those guys go from far-left to far-right, whizzing by those of us in the Great Middle without so much as a tip of the hat and a howdy-do?"

It's probably genetic.

Posted by Dan S. | December 1, 2007 2:35 PM

Dan S,

Robins, would you care to tell the class when this study was conducted?

Would you care to tell the class why you are asking? Distractions and smokescreens are such fun, aren't they?

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 2:49 PM

Rickm,

I don't think I made the point you think I made. Brain function is highly determined by genetics, and neurobiologists are very close to identifying many of the key genes that determine how neurons regulte their connective pathways, and by proxy, how the brain works (at least in a very general sense). Once we now this, it will be relatively simple to examine the population distibution of these genes. About the only thing that I'm really willing to speculate is that highly isolated (genetically speaking) populations with a small set of common ancestrs will show significant differences from each other. (e.g Ashkenazim vs. Nipponese vs. Aboriginal Australians). This is simply luck and the founder effect. The rest of the comparisons, such as the ever popular white vs. black, will be much more complex, and I don't really know what we will see there.

Joel,

You've sort of proved my point. You are a molecular biologist with a sideline in pediatrics. At the moment, the data on genetics and intelligence is so poorly controlled for factors like parental contribution (which we don't understand) and peer influence (which we haven't even figured out how to measure), that any model that claims to compare populations is at the mercy of it's authors' assumptions. Unless one works in the field, it is nearly impossible to have more than a vague sense of whose work is solid and whose isn't, and even within the field there are fundamental disagreements. So your Ph. D. doesn't carry much weight in this discussion, only your data and reasoning. While Steve Sailor (who is, all else aside, a very smart guy) reads too much significance into the available information on race and intelligence, so do you. The two of you simply disagree about what the implications are.

Posted by heedless | December 1, 2007 3:26 PM

"Would you care to tell the class why you are asking? "

Besides broader principles re: dates and references, if we're talking about a study surveying expert opinion, it would presumably matter when such a survey was done, unless we already know that there's been no significant change in the field between (the undisclosed) then and now (or if our only interest is in historical opinion). For example, if you're looking at a survey of medical experts for information on how to treat yellow fever, it matters somewhat whether the survey is from 1793 or 1993 - at least if you want a better chance of your patient surviving.

So - when was that survey from?

Posted by Dan S. | December 1, 2007 3:37 PM

Are there other sets of human advanced mental, emotional, or social functions that are argued to be applicable to genetically-defined 'racial' groups and which are argued to be well understood other than "IQ"?

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 3:38 PM

Reality Man - For those claiming that anti-racist arguments are Marxist just show how little they know of what "Marxism" means. Read what Marx wrote on the non-Western world, such as China.

No one who is objective is questioning the capacity of Lefties to be virulent racists or homophobes or Jew-haters of the stright or anti-Zionist variety when it suits their purposes. What is obvious is the idologues who insist race is an artificial construct and man has not evolved favorable or unfavorable traits between the races over time - regularly resort to Marxist tactics to speak to motive. To discredit, demonize, and marginalize their foes. To use schlock psychiatry to question the mental health of scientists, researchers, and layman who are involved in scientific inquiry. Warmed-over Lysenkoism.

Joel, BTW, is dumb or naive if he fails to grasp the long-term monetary, medical significance of discovery of genes that impact IQ, longevity, cancer resistance, cholesterol levels, and so on.

Or the political ramifications on confirming that evolution didn't stop 50,000 years ago when all men were frozen as absolutely equal - but instead progressed conferring advantages and disadvantages on races and ethicities compared to other groups. If so, all the edifices of Lefties in law or culture that attribute different success and failures by races or ethicities to racism and discrimination (how could it be otherwise if all men are equal by race and ethnicity???), will come tumbling down.

Then more black athletes in speed events will be accepted as natural, given science, than a matter of track and organized sports somehow discriminating against Chinese cornerbacks in the NFL. And no "equality enforcement" law will be justified to "remedy" the status of "too many" German ethnics in engineering with "too few" Gaboonian ethnics given establishment that Germans have more genetic traits needed to be top-notch engineers than Gaboonians do..

The Hap-Map and other DNA discovery projects out there have no shortage of support, even in PC Europe. Despite the hysteria and demnands by Lefty "anti-racists" that DNA mapping shouldn't be done because race and ethnicity are artificial constructs with no differences between populations that is not as significant as within populations (laughable) - all those projects are full steam ahead.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 1, 2007 4:16 PM

And no "equality enforcement" law will be justified to "remedy" the status of "too many" German ethnics in engineering with "too few" Gaboonian ethnics given establishment that Germans have more genetic traits needed to be top-notch engineers than Gaboonians do.

Finally, a good Confederate man willing to speak out against the Gaboonian mafia imposing its "equality enforcement" laws upon German ethnics to stop them from being "top-notch engineers". Now finally we can get some real science done.

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 4:33 PM

Robins-
There are no 7 numbered points in the conclusion of Cosma's post about g. So, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 4:36 PM

There would be all the money in the world available to fund studies to disprove the wildly unfashionable genes-intelligence-race hypothesis, but where are the results?

My friend Jim Flynn debated Charles Murray this week at the Harvard Club and the poor man was reduced to citing the 1961 Eyferth study of mixed race children in Germany, a hugely popular study, but one that has never been replicated in 46 years! To his infinite credit, Flynn is always looking for data (and has contributed much to humanity by publicizing what Murray labeled the Flynn Effect), rather than merely smearing the repuations of researchers, in the manner of Stephen Jay Gould. Flynn's problem in his debates with Murray is that there just isn't much positive data out there to support his views.

So, may I suggest that you all call for more research into this topic?

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 1, 2007 5:01 PM

Besides broader principles re: dates and references, if we're talking about a study surveying expert opinion, it would presumably matter when such a survey was done, unless we already know that there's been no significant change in the field between (the undisclosed) then and now (or if our only interest is in historical opinion).

Well, it might matter when such a survey was done, but you have given no reason to think that it matters with respect to the survey in question.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 5:10 PM

Dan S,

Perhaps, but this misses the political reality, which is that mainstreaming racialist thinking has real policy implications - ...

Perhaps you could describe, as clearly and concisely as you can, exactly what the term "racialist thinking" is supposed to mean. Then perhaps we might be able to give some clear sense to at least part of your ramblings. Is the belief there is such a thing as racial discrimination an example of "racialist thinking?" If not, why not?

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 5:18 PM

There are no 7 numbered points in the conclusion of Cosma's post about g.

Er, yes there are. You really haven't read it, have you?

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 5:21 PM

The AEI-sponsored debate mentioned above is available online for anyone curious. The AEI website provides papers, PowerPoint presentations, audio, and the video of the debate.

It did not seem to me that Flynn, by the way, was "reduced" to mentioning the post-war Eyferth studies in Germany - rather it seemed to me that he did so as a pointedly introductory and emphatically historical exercise. At no point did he claim that this was somehow the best or most recent data. Similarly, when Flynn introduced a discourse on differential height and aging among men and women, he was doing so as a tutorial example, not alleging that this was the best scientific analogy for definitions and studies of 'intelligence'.

This was, after all, a public debate for a right wing think tank, not an actual scientific exchange.

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1425/event_detail.asp#

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 5:54 PM

"Are there other sets of human advanced mental, emotional, or social functions that are argued to be applicable to genetically-defined 'racial' groups and which are argued to be well understood other than "IQ"?"

Sadly, promising research on racial differences in emotional functioning has stalled - the Oriental test subjects were simply too inscrutable.
-----

Ok, ok . . .hmm - let me think. Well, there's been work on violent and cruel white "ice people" vs. compassionate and peaceful black "sun people" . . . however, as Jeffries (1994) has pointed out, "We're not talking about superiority and inferiority, but we're talking about the important factor of melanin. . . . [which] allows us to negotiate the vibrations of the universe and to deal with the ultraviolet rays of the sun. . ."

Hey, all you said was that they were "argued to be applicable . . . and . . . well understood - you didn't specify convincingly argued, or say anything about professional consensus, competence, or even coherence . . .

(Actually, reading the linked Time piece, Jeffries isn't actually claiming that this is well understood; indeed, the opposite:

"There's a mix, a mix of DNA, RNA, and there's a not-too- understood question of melanin, the organized molecule, in the beginning. And this is the relationship that produces the processes of life, the multiplicity of cells . . So what we're trying to say is that there are deep things in biology, in psychology, in geometry, in philosophy, in theology, we don't understand."

I had forgotten what an utter crackpot he was, but you have to give him credit for modesty.
Also: in an odd way, reading this kinda reminds me of Chris Ford's comments.

Speaking of which:

"Jew-haters of the stright or anti-Zionist variety when it suits their purposes. . . ."

Chris, what is that even a typo of? Straight? I mean, I guess I see what that would mean in context, but . . .

" If so, all the edifices of Lefties in law or culture that attribute different success and failures by races or ethicities to racism and discrimination"

Again, it all comes back to this. Judicial, legislative or cultural attempts to fight racism and discrimination - the entire edifice, from things like the Fair Housing Act to affirmative action to voluntary policies and practices to ultimately the very meanings of words like "racism" or "discrimination" - all would be under even more relentless attack by empowered bigots, if they can get their pseudoscience to be accepted enough in the popular mainstream. It's a bit like Intelligent Design creationism - yeah, actual evolutionary biologists know it's utter crap, but if IDers could get enough popular acceptance at high enough levels, that wouldn't matter: they'd be able to do serious damage to science education. This, though, is even worse - far worse.

"The Hap-Map and other DNA discovery projects out there have no shortage of support, even in PC Europe. Despite the hysteria and demnands by Lefty "anti-racists" that DNA mapping shouldn't be done because race and ethnicity are artificial constructs"

Speaking seriously for a moment - your comments are really just inspired pieces of performance art, right? - has there actually been hysteria and demands that "DNA mapping shouldn't be done because race and ethnicity are artificial constructs"? I haven't paid anywhere near close enough attention. No doubt there are sensible concerns over how to prevent potential misuse of such information (after all, within living memory millions of people were slaughtered in the name of a crudely pseudoscientific racist ideology), and there could be a question of whether we'll end up with quasi-colonialist exploitation of genetic resources (within the very cells of your people, we found genetic secrets that will make our drug company countless millions of dollars - and in return, your small, impoverished tribe will get nada), But these reasonable worries aside, is this a brilliant piece of silliness/ (ok - to keep up the role - unfounded and hysterically partisan fantasy), or is it actually based on something real?

Posted by Dan S. | December 1, 2007 5:57 PM

My error -- the AEI sponsored debate was from 2006 -- yet happened to be on November 28, so presumably the debate a few days ago was 2007, and different points were made. Perhaps the more recent exchange has been or will be made similarly available.

Posted by El Cid | December 1, 2007 6:00 PM

I'd like to suggest that you all take Jim Flynn as your role model in thinking about IQ, rather than the late Stephen Jay Gould. They are almost equally far to the left (although I've never noticed Flynn having any of Gould's atavistic regard for Marxism and the Soviet Union), but their approaches are radically different. Flynn is collegial with IQ researchers who disagree with him, data-oriented, and has made a major contribution to the field.

Gould, in contrast, tried to smear real IQ researchers like Arthur Jensen by linking them through a bizarre guilt-by-association linkage to 19th century researchers (before the IQ test was even invented!) whom he smeared (incorrectly, as it has turned out). Gould made no new contributions to knowledge, and on the rare occasions when he tried to debate contemporary researchers was humiliated by his quantitative weaknesses.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 1, 2007 6:30 PM

Rickm,

It is clear that Robins never read the link I posted, other than skimming to the end to try and find an easy summary (which he didn't even understand). Otherwise, he would have read this, which appears early in the post:

"I should add that nothing I'm saying here is in any way original. Almost thirty years ago, Oscar Kempthorne — a man who knew a thing or two about statistical genetics — made pretty much all these points in a paper in Biometrics . . . "

So, of course, his attack on Cosma's alleged lack of qualifications founders on the fact that Cosma doesn't claim to have arrived at the conclusions in the post independently. His purpose is merely to explain the concept of heritability and its (mis)application to human IQ. I suppose Robins would like to take on Kempthorne's expertise in statistical genetics and heritability?

Robins isn't interested in discussing the issues, he's trolling.

The 7 numbered points are:

1. The most common formulae used to estimate heritability are wrong, either for trivial mathematical reasons (such as the upward bias in the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins' correlations), or for substantive ones (the covariance of monozygotic twins raised apart neglects shared environments other than the family, such as maternal and community effects).
2. The best estimate I can find puts the narrow heritability of IQ at around 0.34 and the broad heritability at 0.48.
3. Even this estimate neglected heteroskedasticity, gene-environment interactions, gene-environment covariance, the existence of shared environment beyond the family, and the possibility that the samples being used are not representative of the broader population.
4. Now that people are finally beginning to model gene-environment interactions, even in very crude ways, they find it matters a lot. Recall that Turkheimer et al. found a heritability which rose monotonically with socioeconomic status, starting around zero at low status and going up to around 0.8 at high status. Even this is probably an over-estimate, since it neglected maternal effects and other shared non-familial environment, correlations between variance components, etc. Under such circumstances, talking about "the" heritability of IQ is nonsense. Actual geneticists have been saying as much since Dobzhansky at least.
5. Applying the usual heritability estimators to traits which are shaped at least in part by cultural transmission, a.k.a. traditions, is very apt to confuse tradition with genetics. The usual twin studies do not solve this problem. Studies which could don't seem to have been done.

6. Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or plasticity; every possible combination of high and low heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically possible but also observed.

7. Randomized experiments, natural experiments and the Flynn Effect all show what competent regressions also suggest, namely that IQ is, indeed, responsive to purely environmental interventions."

Robins bleats:

" . . . he is making all sorts of assertions about the "cognitive and psychological" aspects of IQ."

Robins lies. Neither the word "cognitive" nor the word "psychological" appear in any of the seven points. Indeed, none of the 7 points have anything whatsoever to do with cognition or psychology. They have to do with statistical estimates of heritability and the estimates of genetic vs environmental impact on the parameter being measured by IQ.

Heedless bubles:

"Unless one works in the field, it is nearly impossible to have more than a vague sense of whose work is solid and whose isn't, and even within the field there are fundamental disagreements. So your Ph.D. doesn't carry much weight in this discussion, only your data and reasoning."

They clearly don't carry much weight with you. Since my opinions about genetics do carry weight with my medical school, the journals for which I referee and the federal, state and private grant agencies for which I review, all of whom pay me for my opinions, I can't seem to bring myself to care very much about your reactions.

And Chris Ford chirps:

"Joel, BTW, is dumb or naive if he fails to grasp the long-term monetary, medical significance of discovery of genes that impact IQ, longevity, cancer resistance, cholesterol levels, and so on."

I fully grasp their long-term impact. Accordingly, I know your assertion above that their impact lies in " the potential for getting rid of bad genomes and acquiring good ones" is laughable nonsense. That can only happen with either (1) enforced selective breeding of humans and/or (2) the advent of transgenic human beings. Neither is an impact anticipated by the sequencing of the human genome.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 6:32 PM

Robins-
Those are called 'footnotes'. Academic papers, and books!, use them when citing a source.

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 6:33 PM

Flynn kindly sent me a prepublication copy of his latest book, and I reviewed it in VDARE here:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070903_flynn.htm

Both Dr. Flynn and Mrs. Flynn wrote nice notes of appreciation for my review. I think you'll find the review informative.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 1, 2007 6:37 PM

"Gould made no new contributions to knowledge, and on the rare occasions when he tried to debate contemporary researchers was humiliated by his quantitative weaknesses."

LOL! Sailor, you really are an ignorant little troll, aren't you?

Gould and Eldridges' theory of punctuated equilibrium had a major impact on evolutionary biology and paleontology. Indeed, he is one of the most highly cited scientists in evolutionary biology, after Darwin and Mayr.

You, on the other hand, are constantly humiliated here by your intellectual weaknesses.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 6:42 PM

Dan S writes,

Judicial, legislative or cultural attempts to fight racism and discrimination - the entire edifice, from things like the Fair Housing Act to affirmative action to voluntary policies and practices to ultimately the very meanings of words like "racism" or "discrimination" - all would be under even more relentless attack by empowered bigots, if they can get their pseudoscience to be accepted enough in the popular mainstream.

This irrational fear is what drives all your nonsense here, isn't it? You think people can't handle the truth. You think that if conclusive evidence is found for genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups, it will be abused and misused by racists to manipulate public opinion, and before we know it we'll be back to segregated lunch counters. Your position is thoroughly obnoxious. Anti-intellectual, anti-science, opposed to free inquiry and the desire to uncover the truth. And utterly contemptuous of the ability of ordinary people to make informed decisions. Paternalistic. Condescending. Reprehensible.

It's a bit like Intelligent Design creationism -

It's your own conduct in this thread that is reminiscent of creationists. Just as they try to discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection by trying to associate its proponents with marginal figures who abuse the theory for socially invidious ends (social darwinists, eugenicists), you try to discredit the hypothesis of innate racial differences in cognitive abilities by trying to associate anyone who studies or promotes it with marginal figures like Rushton. You're really a thoroughly dishonest and obnoxious individual.

Posted by Joe | December 1, 2007 6:44 PM

Joel,

Robins lies. Neither the word "cognitive" nor the word "psychological" appear in any of the seven points.

Ha ha ha! Good one. Yes, unless he actually uses the words "cognitive" and "psychological" he can't possibly be saying anything about those aspects of IQ. Stupid, even for you. I think it's pretty clear by now that Joel is too dumb to have a Phd in anything, except maybe refrigerator defrosting.

So, of course, his attack on Cosma's alleged lack of qualifications founders on the fact that Cosma doesn't claim to have arrived at the conclusions in the post independently.

Yes, by his own admission, Cosma is making no independent contribution to the issue. And his central claim, to the extent that it is coherent at all ("g is a statistical myth" is not any kind of scientific assertion), is contradicted by virtually all experts working in the field.

But, hey, what's recognized expertise and published research in peer-reviewed journals compared to an amateur blog post? Clearly, the latter is far more persuasive.

Posted by Robins | December 1, 2007 6:57 PM

Ah, little Robins, you are a persistent little troll, aren't you?

You don't understand those 7 points have *nothing* to do with cognition or psychology, do you? It's embarrassing to be caught in a lie, isn't it little boy.

And you are obviously unfamiliar with the idea of a scholarly essay that cites peer-reviewed work. That is what Cosma's essay is.

Now go to your room, Robins. Adults are talking here.

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 7:15 PM

Damn, Joe, I can barely read your comment, there's so much spittle splattered against the inside of the screen . . .

"you try to discredit the hypothesis of innate racial differences in cognitive abilities by trying to associate anyone who studies or promotes it with marginal figures like Rushton"

Hey, we're not the folks who brought Rushton into the discussion - that was Will Saletan. Under those circumstances, it's pretty relevant to point out that this particular fellow promoting it is quite literally associating himself (apparently naively and in passing) with "marginal figures like Rushton". (I am happy to see that you recognize him as such, though.) Arthur Jensen has co-authored at least three recentish articles with Rushton, so he's rather more meaningfully associated with "marginal figures like Rushton". Steve Sailer (though largely a burned-out movie critic with a web page, and a diehard promoter rather than an actual researcher) has praised Rushton's work on applying r/K selection theory to supposed human racial differences (which old J.P.himself sorta-summarized as "It's a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can't have everything"), so again, he's associated with "marginal figures like Rushton". (Perhaps one of the most annoying consequences of Rushton's work is that for a while one of the front-page search results for r/k selection was a neo-nazi website, although thankfully that seems to have changed.)

" Your position is thoroughly obnoxious. . . You're really a thoroughly dishonest and obnoxious individual."

You used "obnoxious" twice within two paragraphs. It's a bit repetitive.

Posted by Dan S. | December 1, 2007 8:02 PM

Dan S,

There you go again. It doesn't take much to provoke yet another recitation of your "Hey Look! This racist was associated science X and person Y. Therefore, science X is junk and person Y is a racist" nonsense, does it?

Hey look! Charles Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton, founded eugenics! So evolution is junk and Darwin was a racist!

Hey look! Isaac Newton was involved in all kinds of nonsensical work in occultism, alchemy, and religious mysticism! Therefore, calculus, classical mechanics, and the Principia Mathematica are junk, and Newton was a pseudoscientist!

Hey Look! Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist! Therefore, all her work in making birth control and abortion available to American women was despicable and she should be condemned!

Posted by Mixner | December 1, 2007 8:35 PM

Mixner-

The argument is not that anyone related to unscrupulous people is ipso facto dishonest or wacky. However, the vast majority of people who do research that attempts to show that black people are genetically inferior to white people...wait for it... are racists. The journal that publishes much of Rushton's work had an associate of the Nazi Dr. Mengele on its staff. If this doesn't raise a flag, I don't know what should.

On top of all that, their science is junk.

Posted by Rickm | December 1, 2007 8:41 PM

Snort. Why is it that the present people screaming most about intelligence differences between the races happen to be pasty white males with absolutely no accomplishments to their names?

I guess boasting about the color of their skin is the only thing they have left.

People like Obama must REALLY tee them off.

Posted by grumpy realist | December 1, 2007 9:02 PM

rickm

However, the vast majority of people who do research that attempts to show that black people are genetically inferior to white people...

The vast majority of scientists working in the areas of genetics, intelligence and racial differences are not "attempting to show that black people are genetically inferior to white people." They are attempting to expand our scientific knowledge. You hate them for that, because you fear the consequences of that knowledge for society, so you attempt to portray them as racists and pseudoscientists.

Posted by Mixner | December 1, 2007 10:04 PM

"You hate them for that, because you fear the consequences of that knowledge for society, so you attempt to portray them as racists and pseudoscientists."

Fascinating. So you're telepathic? Who knew?

Posted by Joel | December 1, 2007 10:08 PM

Well, I personally have absolutely zero interest in getting myself enmeshed in any of these interminably long and bitter "racism" threads...

But I do have one very specific question for "Joel", who claims to be a Ph.D. in genetics and also a real expert on all these evolutionary issues.

Joel, you seem to regard Stephen Jay Gould as a towering figure in modern evolutionary theory, and Gould has been repeatedly cited as an authoritative source by various people in these ongoing debates.

Well, I *don't* have a Ph.D. in the biological sciences, nor will I anonymously pretend to have one. Therefore, I must partially rely upon the opinions of those evolutionary scientists whom I know and respect. Strangely enough, they pretty much all regard Gould as basically a hoax and a fraud in this subject area. Well, maybe they're all ignorant or racists or whatever...

But what about Paul Krugman? I have a very high regard for his intelligence and opinions, and he's written that all HIS evolutionary-theorist friends at Princeton have pretty much the same opinion of Gould and his work that my friends do.

So, Joel, are you claiming that Paul Krugman is a racist and a fraud? Or are you just claiming that all of Krugman's academic colleages in evolutionary theory are racists and frauds? Or is it that you're just so much smarter than everyone in Princeton's Biology Department?

Presumably someone with a "Ph.D. in genetics" can explain this strange puzzle to someone such as myself, who sadly lacks one.

Posted by RKU | December 1, 2007 10:26 PM

Krugman said that S. J. Gould was the John Kenneth Galbraith of evolutionary biology.

That might be kinda harsh on Galbraith.

Addressing a good many other posts, I'm pretty sure that Aristotle had some kind of ulterior motive for that 'ad hominem' argument of his.

Posted by gcochran | December 1, 2007 11:05 PM

Mixner -

Joe insisted that I "try to discredit the hypothesis of innate racial differences in cognitive abilities by trying to associate anyone who studies or promotes it with marginal figures like Rushton. (I do find this, and your related accusation, a bit odd, since I don't think this has been an especially major theme in my comments (although honestly, between attention and memory half the time I don't know what I'm saying)). I responded by pointing out that many of the folks which have been mentioned recently 'round here as studying or promoting this hypothesis in fact were associated with Rushton. Indeed, I didn't make any claims in that comment about whether the individuals or findings so associated actually were racist.

(I'm certainly not trying to claim that the neo-nazi group was racist on the grounds that they associated themselves with Rushton's work (their loathsome racism being pretty independently self-evident), nor that this association proved that Rushton's little book was poorly supported racist pseudoscience (again, independently self-evident). It just was really annoying how that page was, like, the top search result - I mean, what if some impressionable high-schooler went online to try to learn more about evolution than was covered in the week, day, or hostile one-minute statement that their school allocated to the subject?)

Now, Joe may imagine that I am "utterly contemptuous of the ability of ordinary people to make informed decisions," but in fact I have confidence that he will be able to consider my comment and make his own informed decision as to the individuals mentioned.

" Just as [creationists] try to discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection by trying to associate its proponents with marginal figures who abuse the theory for socially invidious ends (social darwinists, eugenicists), you try to discredit . . "

incidentally, this is a rather poor (as well as pretty insulting) comparison. After all, the creationists' argument is that because (often poorly understood, preliminary, and sometimes simply mistaken) evolution-related ideas were abused by people claiming that certain groups were genetically inferior for socially invidious ends, modern evolutionary biology is Bad and Evil. In this case, however, we would be comparing historic people who used (often poorly understood and rather preliminary) science to argue for the genetic inferiority of certain groups for invidious ends with, well, modern people who use (often poorly understood and rather preliminary) science to argue for the genetic inferiority of certain groups - and indeed, some of them seem to be doing so for what I see as invidious ends.

"You think that if conclusive evidence is found for genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups, it will be abused and misused by racists to manipulate public opinion, and before we know it we'll be back to segregated lunch counters."

I think that if it is perceived that there is strong scientific evidence for genetic differences in intelligence, that would be an enormous advantage for people who want to promote certain specific policy preferences, even though many of these policies don't really make much sense even if such a claim turned out to be right. Also, I'm sure everyone here can admit that a few decades ago white America was, by modern standards, a remarkably racist society. This racism didn't simply magically disappear at the end of the "I Have a Dream" speech - it's much lessened, but such ideas are still alive. Heck, many of these people are still alive, and and some of them only learned that certain things were no longer acceptable to say in public (hence some of the fury directed at 'political corrrectness' (alongside genuine criticisms and occasional examples of well-intentioned stupidity, over-reaching, etc.) Such folks would be tremendously comforted and empowered by such a perception. Additionally, research repeatedly seems to show that there is a fair amount of racial discrimination still occurring - in some cases, quite possibly unconscious and even devoid of any personal animosity towards black people. Such a perception (back to my first point) would drastically undermine efforts to fight such discrimination. (after all, if employers are provided with otherwise identical resumes or interviewees, but are more likely to treat the white ones better n terms of callbacks, job offers, etc., that's racial discrimination even if it turned out the genetically inferiority people were right. (Likewise, even if there were small differences in the distribution of certain abilities between men and women (mostly in terms of the very tails of the bell curve), the fact that otherwise identical work, etc. is rated lower if headed by a woman's name, or that women are viewed as less capable of culturally-valued leadership skills whatever skills a particular culture values (even if this ends up being wildly incoherent in terms of an essentialist explanation), etc., etc. still means that discrimination is a problem.

"The vast majority of scientists working in the areas of genetics, intelligence and racial differences are not "attempting to show that black people are genetically inferior to white people." "

Actually, I think that's quite accurate. I'm sure the vast majority of scientists working in areas related to genetics, intelligence, racial differences, etc., aren't attempting to show that black people are genetically inferior to white people. Unfortunately, there's a tiny but pretty vocal minority that is.

RKU - you know, I like Krugman, and I think he's a smart guy who has -at least - made some very good political and common-sense arguments (most of his economics work is way above my head, so I can't really evaluate it), but it's not clear why an economist is supposed to have some special insight into evolutionary biology (circa 1996), any more than an evolutionary biologist should be assumed to have some special insight into economics - especially since (at least in the excerpt quoted many comments back) he's not claiming 'all my friends in the Bio Department say', but 'my reading of the literature suggests': perhaps you're referring to some other remark? And while popular and professional opinions of Gould do in fact differ somewhat - after all, I'm sure there's a fair number of folks who've only even heard of one or two other folks in the field - "a hoax and a fraud" would seem to be going rather overboard. Who are these evolutionary scientists you know and respect?

(And incidentally, what do you think of Krugman's argument, in The Conscience of a Liberal, that the success of an wildly radical and destructive ideology from the far right is based on, well, racists and racism? (to oversimplify a bit)

Posted by Dan S. | December 2, 2007 12:07 AM

Probably the only thing that would make things clear would be actually learning something about
the subject: but in terms of the math involved, there's a lot of overlap between some kinds of economic theory and evolutionary genetics.

As Krugman says:

" I'll talk later about what difference this makes. My point right now is that because the basic methods are similar if not identical, economics and evolutionary theory are surprisingly similar. It is often asserted that economic theory draws its inspiration from physics, and that it should become more like biology. If that's what you think, you should do two things. First, read a text on evoluationary theory, like John Maynard Smith's Evolutionary Genetics. You will be startled at how much it looks like a textbook on microeconomics. Second, try to explain a simple economic concept, like supply and demand, to a physicist. You will discover that our whole style of thinking, of building up aggregative stories from individual decisions, is not at all the way they think.

So there is a close affinity in method and indeed of intellectual style between economics and evolution. But there is another interesting parallel: both economics and evolution are model-oriented, algebra-heavy subjects that are the subject of intense interest from people who cannot stand algebra. And as a result in each case it is very important to distinguish between the field as it is perceived by outsiders (and portrayed in popular books) and what it is really like. We all know that economics is a field in which the most famous authors are often people who are regarded, with good reason, as not even worth arguing with by almost everyone in the profession. Do you remember that global best-seller The Coming Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra? And I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking. Well, the same is true in evolution.

I am not sure how well this is known. I have tried, in preparation for this talk, to read some evolutionary economics, and was particularly curious about what biologists people reference. What I encountered were quite a few references to Stephen Jay Gould, hardly any to other evolutionary theorists. Now it is not very hard to find out, if you spend a little while reading in evolution, that Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is beloved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there. (And yes, there is some resentment of his fame: in the field the unjustly famous theory of "punctuated equilibrium", in which Gould and Niles Eldredge asserted that evolution proceeds not steadily but in short bursts of rapid change, is known as "evolution by jerks").

What is rare in the evolutionary economics literature, at least as far as I can tell, is references to the theorists the practitioners themselves regard as great men - to people like George Williams, William Hamilton, or John Maynard Smith. This is serious, because if you think that Gould's ideas represent the cutting edge of evolutionary theory (as I myself did until about a year and a half ago), you have an almost completely misguided view of where the field is and even of what the issues are.

Posted by gcochran | December 2, 2007 12:35 AM

My impression, concerning Gould, is much like Krugman's. He talked about evolutionary biology without knowing or understanding evolutionary genetics. Without knowing or understanding the equations that govern the dynamic process that results in evolutionary change. We have a mathematical theory of that process, but Gould didn't know it or perhaps rejected it.
And because of that, Gould never developed any important new insights in the field, no more than an astronomomer without any knowledge of astrophysics could.
I would not be surprised to find that at this point Krugman knows more evolutionary genetics than that the average Ph.D. in human genetics, because that average Ph.D.in human genetics never studies evolutionary genetics: he hasn't read Maynard Smith, Haldane, Hamilton, Fisher, Crow and Kimura. etc.

Posted by gcochran | December 2, 2007 12:49 AM

To be fair to Gould, he was a paleontologist, and his knowledge of the erratic rate of change in the fossil record contributed to his notion of "evolution by jerks" (as the actual scientists in the field unkindly referred to Gould and Eldredge). It's not really much of a theory, but it is useful in countering the naive public notion that evolution must entail a smooth rate of change.

Unfortunately, Gould's relative innumeracy meant he wasn't able to contribute more than vaguely to the study of evolution. He was born a century too late. He should have been born before Fisher and others had made natural selection theory intensely mathematical. But that's at least better than his "contributions" to the study of IQ in The Mismeasure of Man, which were almost wholly pernicious, indeed, downright laughable.

But, Gould _did_ have a mellifluous prose style.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 2, 2007 7:19 AM

RKU,

"Strangely enough, they pretty much all regard Gould as basically a hoax and a fraud in this subject area."

Since "they pretty much all" feel the same way, it shouldn't be hard for you to cite, say, three respected evolutionary scientists who have stated that Gould's contributions to evolution are a "hoax" and/or a "fraud." I'm calling bullshit on this one.

"But what about Paul Krugman? I have a very high regard for his intelligence and opinions . . . "

You? Who are you?

" . . . and he's written that all HIS evolutionary-theorist friends at Princeton have pretty much the same opinion of Gould and his work that my friends do."

Call Paul Krugman and get the cites from him, then. Who are these people? Look, RKU, when your work is as widely cited as Gould's is, unless it is cited as an example of bad science (which it isn't), then it is--by definition--influential.

"So, Joel, are you claiming that Paul Krugman is a racist and a fraud? Or are you just claiming that all of Krugman's academic colleages in evolutionary theory are racists and frauds?"

LOL! No, my desperate little troll, I never called anyone a racist or a fraud. Why do you try to put words in my mouth? Is this your idea of scientific discourse?

"Presumably someone with a "Ph.D. in genetics" can explain this strange puzzle to someone such as myself, who sadly lacks one."

To begin with, little troll, a Ph.D. in genetics is not required to explain this puzzle. You are simply lying. Neither Paul Krugman nor any of your evolutionary scientist friends have called Gould's contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology, which were his towering contributions that I referenced above, a fraud or a hoax. In the quote above, Krugman cites a silly snark about punctuated equilibrium, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in genetics to detect more than a whiff of envy. Clearly, though, it takes more intellectual firepower and honesty than you possess.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | December 2, 2007 8:51 AM

I think this has become my favorite racist comment thread on this site, beating out the time Steve Sailer complained that vegetarians and socialists were unfairly dodging the guilt-by-association with Hitler. Awesomeness.

Posted by Barbar | December 2, 2007 10:05 AM

Well, it's clearly a waste of time for someone as ignorant as myself to argue with the brilliant "Dr. Joel, Ph.D." but I'll give it just one more try anyway.

Consider Richard Dawkins, an outstanding evolutionary theorist, and also one of the world's most prominent public intellectuals. For decades, he's certainly characterized Gould's evolutionary "theories" as those of an ignorant laughingstock.

Now admittedly, some other people have a very high regard for Gould's ideas, just as you claim. For example, all those Creationists who write all those books debunking "Darwinism" tend to cite Gould as one of the leading mainstream "experts" supporting of their critiques.

So maybe Dr. Joel's Ph.D. is actually in "Creation Science," and his appointment is at Bob Jones University...

Posted by RKU | December 2, 2007 10:06 AM

For any serious readers of this thread:

The key to understanding the evidence that the basis for population ("race") differences in IQ lies in significant genetic differences between populations is understanding what is meant by "heritability." If you do not know how heritability is measured, what is meant by broad and narrow sense heritability, the assumptions that go into making these calculations, the uncertainly in the numbers that result, and the latest data demonstrating gene-environment interactions (see, e.g., epigenetics) and how they confound assumptions built into the calculation, then you cannot discuss this issue with any authority.

Since this is fundamentally an argument based on statistical genetics, the link I posted above is useful and I commend it to the thoughtful reader possessed of honest curiousity:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

Cosma doesn't deal with the validity of g or of IQ tests as a measure of intellegence. He doesn't deal with psychology or cognition. He deals with the limitations of measuring heritability of any trait in human populations. He demonstrates convincingly, and mainly in lay language, why the assertions made about heritability of "IQ" or "g," regardless of what they measure, are suspect.

The undeniable differences in "IQ" in different human populations may have a significant genetic basis. Or it may not. But anyone who tells you that genetics supports this view is simply lying. Genetics is agnostic on this point.

Posted by Joel | December 2, 2007 10:07 AM

RKU,

Would that be this Dawkins?

". . . Dawkins praises Gould in evolutionary topics other than those of contention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

LOL! You're pathetic, RKU! You don't understand any of the issues, so you cherry-pick specific controversies, pretend that they represent a consensus, and use this as a lame attempt to paper over the fact that (a) Gould is a widely revered but flawed figure in evolutionary biology (as was Mayr, and as is Lewontin and Dawkins) and (b) you don't actually understand the issues, so you substitute personalities and your misunderstanding of their conflicts. I've had high school students in my lab with better critical thinking skills.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by RKU | December 2, 2007 10:22 AM

The last post was by me, not RKU.

Posted by Joel | December 2, 2007 10:24 AM

Or would it be this Dawkins?

"For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much, too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

Now perhaps we can set aside the silly notion that the differences between measured "IQ" in different human populations has anything to do with the opinions of Richard Dawkins or Stephen J. Gould about each other, and discuss what really matters to honest scientists--the evidence that there is a significant genetic basis for this difference. I've put my cards on the table by endorsing the Cosma essay. What is your rebuttal, RKU?

Posted by Joel | December 2, 2007 10:40 AM

All the science on Man's genomes and the history of their origins is going full steam ahead - because the potential for getting rid of bad genomes and acquiring good ones is too valuable to ignore.

I assume you mean get rid of bad 'genotypes,' Chris. And pray tell, how does one 'acquire' a genome, anyway? 'Genome' is normally only applicable in the singular sense, referring to the genome of Man proper. Unless of course you actually meant the genetic makeup of one race is markedly different enough from that of another race, so as to legitimize referring to them as possessing separate genomes. A warning, chum: its not far from this sort of thought to referring to only specific races as constituting 'Man,' which may not be an illogical leap considering the tone of your usual rants. Of course, if your goal is the elimination of 'genomes' in the proper sense, well, you've already taken that leap. G'luck with that.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 2, 2007 10:54 AM

There sure do seem to be a multiplicity of standards here by the race & IQ crowd.

Stephen Jay Gould's primary contributions in science were empirical, not theoretical in nature. Yet this makes him some sort of terrible figure in evolutionary science, since only theoretical contributions in genetics are truly worthy.

Yet none of the debate here about race & IQ contribute theoretically to either topic. Rather, the alleged connection between race & IQ is an entirely empirical one. How has this debate purported to advance a theoretical understanding either of "race", genetics, "IQ", or intelligence for that matter.

Posted by El Cid | December 2, 2007 11:26 AM

Perhaps Gould shouldn't have titled his last book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". It might confuse people into thinking that he did or knew anything about evolutionary theory.

And there is no debate here about race and IQ. There is just blathering.
Why can't liberal arts majors tell us their strongly-held opinions about logic circuits or the Chandrasekhar limit too? Why limit yourself to psychometrics?

Posted by gcochran | December 2, 2007 12:34 PM

"And there is no debate here about race and IQ. There is just blathering."

Heh. Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Posted by Joel | December 2, 2007 12:54 PM

Joel,

I've put my cards on the table by endorsing the Cosma essay.

Which is about as relevant as your endorsement of alchemy. What matters is the quality of your arguments, not what you "endorse."

The Cosma blog post is so meandering and poorly written it's hard to find any clear argument in the text or even any clear statement of a central proposition. The meaning of the statement "g is a statistical myth" is not clear. Perhaps he means that g is, in one sense at least, a statistical abstraction, a claim that I doubt any actual expert in the field of intelligence research would dispute.

There's a reason science isn't done in blogs. Get back to us when, instead of a blog post written by an amateur, you have a serious scientific paper written by someone with recognized expertise in the field and published in a reputable, and preferably peer-reviewed, scientific journal. At least then you might have something that passes the smell test.

Posted by Mixner | December 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Wow, if only these liberal arts idiots had listened to the economics-trained geniuses on this comment blog, they could avoid all their time-wasting 'research' and just look at IQ tests from schools and the like. How do these idiot so-called "scientists" not realize that these questions were already thoroughly answered a century ago?

'Intelligence genes' proving hard to find: study
Wed Nov 28, 2:22 PM ET

Genes that can be pinned to intelligence are proving frustratingly hard to find, the British weekly New Scientist reports in next Saturday's issue.

Researchers led by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London obtained intelligence scores for 7,000 seven-year-olds based on verbal and non-verbal reasoning tests.

They also took DNA samples from the children in the hope of identifying genetic differences between the high and low scorers.

The huge trawl identified 37 variants in six genes that appear to be play some role in differences in intelligence.

But the individual effects of these genes was barely detectable. Together they account for just one percent of the variation in intelligence between individuals.

Previous research, based on twins and adopted children, suggests that about half of the variation of intelligence is due to upbringing and social factors, and the rest is inherited.

Even though the genetic link to intelligence is proving so elusive, that doesn't mean that this 50-50 proportion should be reviewed, New Scientist says.

It simply implies that a complex trait like intelligence clearly results from the cumulative effect of a wide combination of genes, rather than individual ones, it says.

"Intelligence is a function of the way the brain is put together, and at least half of our genome contributes in some way or another to brain function, which means that in order to build a human brain, you need thousands of genes to work together," New York University psychologist Gary Marcus told the publication.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071128/ts_afp/sciencebiotechgenesintelligence_071128185555

Surely some loudmouth expert psychometricians will quickly buy a ticket to London to help these poor nincompoops out of their confusion.

Posted by El Cid | December 2, 2007 4:42 PM

El Cid,

Yes, identifying the genes that influence intelligence and isolating their particular effects is difficult. And your point is...?

Posted by Mixner | December 2, 2007 4:53 PM

Perhaps he means that g is, in one sense at least, a statistical abstraction, a claim that I doubt any actual expert in the field of intelligence research would dispute.

Oh Jesus F. Christ, the guy is a statistician. You think he's arguing "gee these test scores are just numbers they aren't anything real in the world, it's just an abstraction"? I know his post is very long and contains lots of words but just freaking read it.

How do you know that g is a real thing, Mixner? Presumably because you can look at scores across various intelligence tests and see correlations. Shalizi's post explains why this does not actually prove that g exists. (This, by the way, is not a very new point.) His argument is helpfully divided into sections:

The origin of g: Spearmans' original general factor theory

The modern g

Exploratory factor analysis vs. causal inference

Correlations explain g, not the other way around

How to make 2766 independent abilities look like one g factor

So go read it. Meanwhile, this thread continues to be hilarious.

Posted by Barbar | December 2, 2007 5:10 PM

Barbar,

Oh Jesus F. Christ,

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Bless my giddy aunt! Fer cryin' out loud!

You think he's arguing "gee these test scores are just numbers they aren't anything real in the world, it's just an abstraction"?

It's not clear what he means by "myth." That's kind of the point. Blog posts often tend to be badly written and unclear, and this one is no exception. That's one reason we don't do science via blogs.

How do you know that g is a real thing, Mixner?

I don't know what you mean by "a real thing." I haven't claimed it's "a real thing." g is a concept that describes a component of cognition. It's like asking whether reason is "a real thing" or whether memory is "a real thing." Define "real," as you are using the word in this context, then it might be possible to give some clear sense to your question.

Posted by Mixner | December 2, 2007 5:31 PM

It's amusing that the Gould/Krugman argument is making the rounds here. As I was reading and mulling about the comments posted here I began thinking about how the IQ/race versus genetics issues straddle the interface between the natural and social sciences. I think Krugman is correct, that natural scientists tend to "think" about things differently than social scientists.

Natural scientists are accustomed to precise definitions and quantifiable measures. They are concerned with explanations for observed phenomena that are testable and that can demonstrate robust and repeatable experimental results. The complexity of the mathematics is of little concern, either it describes the findings with a reasonable level of certainty or it doesn't. An excellent example of this science "culture" is a topic that was discussed earlier in these comments, String Theory. Although exquisite in its mathematical elegance, even its practitioners agree that unless it provides testable hypothesis, it is simply a philosophy and not science.

Mathematics alone does not a scientific theory make. The first question asked of any practicing geneticist who claims a correlation between “race” and “IQ” is “What is the reason for this “link” and what are the experiments that would allow that geneticist to demonstrate causality and not mere correlation?” If no resulting testable hypothesizes are put forward, then the response of the science community would be, “Well, that’s all very interesting and do feel free to come back when you’ve proven something”. This of course, assumes that the geneticist can EVER quantify the surrogates “IQ” and “race” and that the geneticist would even bother trying to do so given the lack of a justifiable reason to do so.

Now, Gould may not have been privy to the genetic tools and mathematical understanding we possess today, but his critique of “IQ” and “race” can not be discounted merely because he provided no grand "equations" in his analysis. Also, I think there is a significant blurring (or blathering, if you will) going on here among those who wish to suggest that Gould was not respected by his peers and a desire to suggest that this lack of respect indicates that those peers agree that "race" and "IQ" are sound scientific principles. If his peers were actually making this argument, I’d ask that you provide links to their research in this field so I can ask them the questions that I stated previously.

Although I do not know for certain, I would be shocked to find that Krugman agrees that there is a discernable "IQ" difference between the "races". To do so would suggest that Krugman has fallen prey to what I personally believe is a significant flaw in the social sciences; namely, that mathematical constructs can be synthesized to "prove" just about anything.

There is no mistaking the value of social sciences and the contributions eminent social scientists have made. However, the danger of the social sciences (and some natural sciences for that matter) is that their measures are often qualitative. This allows the more disreputable “scientists” (or their more fawning acolytes such as Steve Sailer) to claim a level of mathematical certainty that is simply not accepted by the rest of the scientific community due to the tenuous nature of the variables described.

What exactly is IQ? What relevance does it have to "intelligence" and who cares (except for those trying to compensate for something)? What is the genetic meaning of "race" and how does what appears to be a description of appearance impact what even the practitioners agree is "surrogate” for intelligence? Where is the mathematical model that provides a testable hypothesis? If one does not exist, why should I consider this mathematical model any more than just philosophy in the absence of quantifiable measures?

In the end, I could chose a life devoted to understanding the relationship between a donkey's mood and the "quality" of its bowel movements. I could generate elaborate equations that describe the various "factors" that make up the donkey's mood. I could spend my career categorizing the movements and publishing my findings in the National Review and it's various rancid cousins. I could claim a level of certainty "confirmed" by standard statistical measures and then use my "findings' to make broad generalizations about various populations and the relationships between their "feelings" and their scat. But on my deathbed (surrounded by those who chose to follow in my footsteps) I'd be forced to utter that my epitaph should read, "He studied shit".

Posted by Rihilism | December 2, 2007 5:35 PM

Your real point here is that blogs are useless to discuss scientific issues? Riiight. Well you're at this blog you might want to tell Steve Sailer that. And what are you doing here anyway? Are you advancing the discussion of science forward by citing peer-reviewed journal articles? Amazing! Thanks so much for your contribution!

As for what it means for g to be real, I would ask you to read the "how to make 2766 independent abilities..." section in Cosma's post. Oh I know, I know: it's so hard to understand, but so easy to criticize political correctness.

Posted by Barbar | December 2, 2007 5:57 PM

Rihilism,

So we don't have to keep saying the same things over and over again, try reading these two documents, which more-or-less summarize the major points of agreement among mainstream intelligence researchers on the nature of intelligence, IQ scores, and racial differences. Note that both documents mention that prevailing expert opinion is that racial differences may have both genetic and environmental causes.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

I'm not sure what "principles" you're seriously contesting. That race is a scientifically meaningful concept? That intelligence is a scientifically meaningful concept? That IQ test scores measure intelligence (or, at least, certain aspects of intelligence)? That IQ scores predict academic success, work success, and other life outcomes? That there are significant racial differences in IQ test scores? That these differences may be caused by both genetic and environmental influences? Or what? Maybe you could just state, as clearly and concisely as you can, what you believe on the topic. That might save a lot of time identifying points of agreement and disagreement.

Posted by Mixner | December 2, 2007 6:11 PM

Barbar,

As for what it means for g to be real, I would ask you to read the "how to make 2766 independent abilities..." section in Cosma's post.

No, I'm asking you what you mean by "g is a real thing." "Real" in what sense? Is cognition "a real thing," as you are using the word here? How about intelligence? Or reason?

Posted by Mixner | December 2, 2007 6:16 PM

When someone with a low IQ figures out a way to build a jet engine, invent the cavity magnetron, break the Engima code, or fission the uranium atom, I promise to re-evaluate my notion that intelligence is important and that IQ tests are a fair measurement of it.

It hasn't happened yet.

Posted by gcochran | December 2, 2007 6:45 PM

"Note that both documents mention that prevailing expert opinion is that racial differences may have both genetic and environmental causes."

Well, Mixner, it's quite simple, I'm pointing out the complete lack of evidence that demonstrates causality between “race” and “IQ”. Correlation (as my example suggests) does not prove causality, does not necessarily provide useful information, and is easily abused for nefarious purposes. The mathematical constructs used to "demonstrate" a correlation between an undefined variable such as “race” (perhaps you’d be so kind as to define “race”) and a nebulous concept like “IQ” (can you please associate this qualitative measure with any physical or chemical processes that can be claimed as “intelligence”) are not indicative of a robust and an experimentally confirmable theory. Those who suggest that evidence of causality exists are charlatans, practitioners of junk science, and are authors of garbage such as “The Bell Curve”.

Posted by Rihilism | December 2, 2007 7:13 PM

Nathaniel Weyl

Comments (144)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories