Beware Of Genetics!

Irony? (0.00 / 0)

The NYT ran an interesting article about reaction to the possibility that scientists may someday prove that genetic difference among groups whose ancestors came from different continents is be linked to intelligence.

---

by: JoeTS @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 23:15:37 PM CST

Typo (0.00 / 0)

No, just a typo. It's fixed.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:31:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

tell me, what is "race"? (0.00 / 0)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 23:35:49 PM CST

Good question (0.00 / 0)

Laurel, I put the word in quotes because I know the idea of "race" itself is contentious. The NYT article focuses on research regarding "people of different continental origin." The Slate article, of course, doesn't have the same focus.

You might also ask "what is 'intelligence?'"

The question is: Suppose scientists to your and my satisfaction (insofar as we as layment are quaified to judge the research) that there are genetic differences among "people of different continental origin" that explain differences in measured  I.Q." What follows? My answer: not much. No need to get worked up about it, is what I guess I' suggesting

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:29:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Again with the typos! (0.00 / 0)

Sorry.

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:37:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your on the right track ... (5.00 / 1)

I think you were on the right track when you question "what is inteligence". My view is that inteligence is the demonstrated ability to adapt to environs and since we all seem to be here, everyone has somehow adapted to their own particulars, however varied those might be.
So who gets to determine inteligence and how do they determine that? ... that where the problem begans.

---

by: nomad943 @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:40:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, yes, yes (0.00 / 0)

Of course you're right that intelligence is a problematic idea, just like race. And certainly one response (probably a wrong response) to the kind of research about which folks quoted in the NYT are sounding the alarm bells is just to deny that the concept of intelligence is meaningful, and thus to deny that the research is meaningful.

But bear with me and suppose that we could agree on a meaningful measure of intelligence. If there were a genetic component to intelligence thus measured, and if the races or "groups of different continental ancestry" or whatever differed genetically in the relevant respect, would that be a problem for you? Would you, as some quoted in the NYT article fear, find that the results undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal?"

What I am saying is that, at least for me, such a scientific result would mean little or nothing, because I already think that a person's intelligence is out of his or her control. It doesn't matter to me that genes play a role in determining intelligence. The key fact is that intelligence is determined; it doesn't matter that the cause is genetic rather than (or in addition to) environmental.

What do you think?

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:27:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My hunch ... (5.00 / 1)

My hunch would be that if such a study were truly unbiased it would yield results indicating that all Homosapiens have roughly similar ranges of inteligence.
If the study yielded vastly different results I would go after the biased nature of the study.
Thats just my hunch and as I have said, I know of no objective method of determining level of inteligence.
What you refer to is methods of applying that inteligence and again one persons idea of how one should apply their inteligence is not neccesarily another persons idea.
Who is right and who gets to decide?

---

by: nomad943 @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 13:48:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, if science can show evidence for something (0.00 / 0)

You're already preparing to not believe it because you don't like the societal impact of the evidence?  Hi, I'm global warming...have we met?

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:16:46 AM CST

Joe (0.00 / 0)

Joe, go back and read the post. You've missed my point.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:30:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gotcha. (6.00 / 1)

I concede I did not read well enough.

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:15:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Shades of the book <i>The Bell Curve</i> (0.00 / 0)

Several observations.

One, regarding

What is the right response? What should progressives do if and when scientists demonstrate a genetic link between "race" and intelligence?

you might consider doing nothing until someone  proposes putting that information to use, and how. 

BTW1: that someone who may or may not be a "progressive"--more than a few of the eugenics movement in the US in the early 20th century would be considered liberal

BTW2: Laurel has a point regarding "race."

Two, the more immediate issue, at least for the US, is genetic links to even propensity for certain diseases and other health conditions on the one hand, and the availability of health insurance and even employment (they are oftentimes linked) on the other hand.  Health insurance companies may use genetic screening to narrow the risk--or refuse to cover a genetically-related condition at all--instead of spreading the risk.  Moreover, particularly with a small company, a single higher-risk employee might put the group policy at risk of high premiums if not outright cancellation.

Three, regarding it really should make no difference that the balance between the two is shifted somewhat more towards nature and away from nurture as far as I can tell, the divide between nature and nurture is not particularly real.  It is a feedback mechanism.  It would take a bit to explain in detail, but generally, people of similar "natures" tend to intermarry, and provide their offspring with particular "nurturing."  Their offspring tend to marry with persons of similar "natures" and on it goes.  Call it a "class enhancement" mechanism if you like.

As an aside, you might want to pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel.  He, a scientist, lays out the thesis in exhaustive detail. 

As a further aside, you might want to consider which grouping is defining "intelligence."  "Disease" or "condition" is fairly easy to define; "intelligence" is not.

---

by: raj @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:57:23 AM CST

Responses (0.00 / 0)

you might consider doing nothing until someone  proposes putting that information to use, and how.

I agree with this, and indeed, my point really is that the article, with its somewhat dire warnings, is much ado about (what should be) nothing. Maybe I shouldn't have titled it "Beware Genetics!"

Two, the more immediate issue, at least for the US, is genetic links to even propensity for certain diseases and other health conditions on the one hand, and the availability of health insurance and even employment (they are oftentimes linked) on the other hand.  Health insurance companies may use genetic screening to narrow the risk--or refuse to cover a genetically-related condition at all--instead of spreading the risk.  Moreover, particularly with a small company, a single higher-risk employee might put the group policy at risk of high premiums if not outright cancellation.

Agreed. Genetic testing, in my view, is a terrible idea in the health insurance market. Fortunately, at least in Massachusetts, genetic testing for health insurance purposes is illegal.

Three, regarding it really should make no difference that the balance between the two is shifted somewhat more towards nature and away from nurture as far as I can tell, the divide between nature and nurture is not particularly real.  It is a feedback mechanism.  It would take a bit to explain in detail, but generally, people of similar "natures" tend to intermarry, and provide their offspring with particular "nurturing."  Their offspring tend to marry with persons of similar "natures" and on it goes.  Call it a "class enhancement" mechanism if you like.

I've read the book, and I agree that the line is fuzzy. That's consistent with my overarching point, which is that what matters is that intelligence (assume that it can be well-defined) is determined. It doesn't really matter whether "nature" or "nurture" does the job.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:37:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I actually disagree with... (0.00 / 0)

...beware of genetics.  But it depends on how the results of genetic analyses are used.

I have given you the horror stories.  But suppose that genetic analysis can be used to (a) identify a genetic propensity for a certain condition, and (b) that can be used to reduce if not ameliorate the likelihood of a person getting the condition.  That would be a positive result, would it not?

Information can be used for positive and negative.  It would be undesirable to dismiss it out of hand.

---

by: raj @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:07:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What good can come from ... (0.00 / 0)

What good can come from a study attempting to link genetics to "inteligence". I can not think of a single GOOD result from such a study.

---

by: nomad943 @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:23:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The truth? (0.00 / 0)

The truth has to be confronted, no matter how ugly it is. I don't want junk scientists linking intelligence to race and then use the data for nefarious reasons. But suppressing an ernest scientific investigation simply because we may not like the results is antithetical to the scientific ideal.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 13:36:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Odd... (0.00 / 0)

...I had believed that I was saying pretty much the same thing regarding intelligence.

---

by: raj @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 14:35:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Feedback... (0.00 / 0)

I think the notion of feedback is right, and that it is happening today.  I also think that it happens less today than it did 100 years ago.

Young people feel less constrained by their culture to date and eventually marry within their ethnic background or religion than 100 years ago.  Of course, far more young people today would date outside of their race* (white, hispanic, black, Asian, etc).

Furthermore, (I think!) that more young people from lower social status are getting in to colleges, including state unis and traditionally elite private universities than was happening 50 or 100 years ago.  If so, that may provide even more "churn", the opposite of the feedback raj refers to, at least in terms of race, culture, and ethnicity.

However, it may provide even stronger feedback on a different slice -- intelligence.  We're talking about feedback, not a universal rule here.  But, if many intelligent people go to college, and many people either (a) marry someone they met in college or (b) through connections through work in their degree-requiring job, then there may be feedback on that end.  The same may hold true on the lower end, particularly (b).

All of that may be moot if the randomness of intelligence overcomes the intelligence of one's parents.

  * Yes, I know, it's a social construct.  Still, it's there.  My goal is not to be exhaustive or to carefully construct correctness.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 07:32:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As far as I can tell, for better or for worse... (0.00 / 0)

..."race" is at most part of a taxonomy.  Something like "breed" (of dogs).  Taxonomies are, of course, imposed by humans.

From what I have read, actually five races have been identified, based largely on geographical distribution: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Polynesian, and a fifth that I don't recall.  As far as I can tell, the only utility for this taxonomy is in public health.  It appears to be likely that there is some (albeit slight) genetic basis for the taxonomy, and if a genetic population has some propensity for a condition, it may be possible to ameliorate the condition.  I'm thinking primarily of cycle-sell anemia among Negroids, but I'm sure there are others.

---

by: raj @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:06:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Where a little knowledge can be particularly dangerous (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, intelligence is a complex, multi-dimensional thing. Trying to pull native intelligence apart from environment is no easy matter either. It is further complicated by the fact that race is a social, not biological or genetic category. African people, by the way, have a larger genetic diversity than people native to any other continent. See Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel for one account. And speaking of Diamond's book, it gives an extraordinarily convincing account of why New Guinea and Australia might still be hunting and gathering where Eur-Asians blessed with crops suitable for agriculture and animals suitable for domestication might have gotten a leg up on the rush to industrialization.

Given the complexity and sensitivity of this debate, methodology is both important and subtle. Those seeking simple answers are likely to find them -- but they won't necessarily be the right answers.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 13:01:05 PM CST

I read Diamond's book shortly after it came out in paperback... (0.00 / 0)

...I was astounded at his presentation, something that I would expect of a scientist, but not a popularist.  He presented a thesis, and presented evidence for the thesis.  That is the first third of the book.

Then he presented the countervailing arguments and evidence why those countervailing arguments were incorrect.  That was the second, and probably the most important third of the book.

Thereafter, he does further marshalling of the evidence of his thesis.

It is the second third that makes the book interesting from a scientific standpoint.  I recognize that Diamond's book was not peer reviewed, but he almost does a peer-review himself.  Was he correct?  I don't know.  But he did do an interesting job of marshalling his evidence and countering countervailing possibilities.

---

by: raj @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 13:14:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I loved Guns Germs & Steel (0.00 / 0)

I finally picked it up over the summer and recommend to just about everyone. It's such an elegant and simple answer to one of the world's most baffling mysteries -  why did Europeans conquer America (and Australia, parts of Africa, etc)? Why didn't the Native Americans sail across the Atlantic and conquer Europe?

http://books.google....

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 13:32:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BS (6.00 / 1)

There's absolutely, positively NO WAY to accurately measure intelligence among large populations, especially within different ethnicities and locations. There's no fair test to do it and no fair definition of what intelligence actually is, especially an exam that wouldn't include bias and prejudice based on ethnicity (especially in any exam's assumptions). Furthermore, there's going to be a lot of fuel to the fire if anyone doing this research has reason for prejudice.

I spent a lot of time studying the MCAS when I was in high school, since I sat as an executive advisor to the Board of Education, chairing one of its student advisory committees. I looked at a lot of data, especially among trends from year to year and among the different age groups, etc. Would you like to know one of the best means to predict how students would do on the exam, far better than race? Socio economic levels.

Furthermore, I took an entire course in college dedicated to examining bias in tests such as the IQ and why they can't be trusted and in many ways can be called racist, at least in how they've been applied to society. So, quite honestly, I don't want to hear any of this BS. Lots of scientists have claimed ways to measure intelligence and point to certain races having more of it than others; it was disgusting and in many cases became justification for eugenics.

The human brain is a remarkable organ: almost anyone is capable of doing almost anything with it. Biologically normal affluent people become complete burnouts and people with Attention Deficit Disorder go on to become MDs. I'm not just buyin.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 04:27:05 AM CST

Yes, yes, yes (0.00 / 0)

Ryan, you may be right about the possibility or impossibility of quantifying intelligence. But whether we like it or not, the intelligence quotient is a statistic with social meaning, even if it doesn't measure something scientifically meaningful.

My point was that scientific results linking "race" (however defined) to "intelligence" (however defined) shouldn't really worry us, because we already know or should know that a person's "intelligence" is not something within his control. So if in the future I see such a study, I will not think to myself, "I no longer believe in the inherent equality of people, because now I see that their intelligence is determined, at least in part, by their genes." I already think their intelligence is determined by factors beyond their control, so it doesn't much matter to me whether those factors are genetic or environmental. And anyway, when we (or at least I) talk about equality of persons, we (I) are really talking about a moral idea, not an empirical idea.

But your comment, and a couple of others, suggest that you would not react to such a finding with a shrug of your shoulders. You would want to fight it by challenging, for example, the definition of intelligence used. My question to you is: why? Is it that you fear what the reaction of other people to the study might be? Is it that you believe that each of us controls and is responsible for his own intelligence, or at least that society must act as if this were so?

In short, I'm just trying to understand why there's such a fuss about this issue.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:18:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My Two Cents ... (0.00 / 0)

Here is why (for me).
I asked the question "what good could come from such a line of study". Noone answered.
My guess is that there is no answer because there is no GOOD direction ANY outcome of such a study could lead to.
What such a study COULD be used for is to stir up the pot, be used as fuel to fan the flames of racial conflict, as we all know is done with regularity.
Who would do this and why is not clear until such a study was done, but if it was done I would assume why it was done and how its "results" would be used because it has been done that way time and again .... anything to deflect the reality that the only classification that is dividing manking into GROUPS is economic.
This is class warfare man ... but as long as we divide ourselves over gender and race and whatever, people forget to keep an eye on the cash register and in this world where currency has been installed as the new god that is always the real objective.

---

by: nomad943 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:40:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Class Warfare (0.00 / 0)

Nomad, I suppose the "good" that comes from such work is knowledge about ourselves and our nature. Right?

Also, I'm not sure why, but I find the Marxist angle on this refreshing, sort of a bracing blast from the past. :-)

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:53:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Acquired Taste .. (6.00 / 1)

I have learned that egalatarian concerns rarely motivate anyone outside of philosophers.
The chart below is a demonstration of something that CANNOT have occured randomly. You are free to believe what you will about HOW it occured, but you can not deny that it has.

---

by: nomad943 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:09:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong... (0.00 / 0)

I am in favor of serious wealth redistribution through the income tax and the estate tax, which in my view is the best and most efficient method of reducing the growing wealth disparity.

You don't have to believe that "it's all about class" to care about equality. Think Rawls instead of Marx.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:19:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A progressive answer (0.00 / 0)

So, you're big on the wealth redistribution. 

The prevailing view that explains the wealth 'inequality' chart referenced above, is, that in the US, the demand for higher skilled/educated people has outstripped supply, causing the income of the more skilled worker to rise. 

Meanwhile, the less skilled/educated people have experienced real wage loss because of globalization and the high supply of world-wide low skilled workers.

Perhaps science will show that the high skilled workers are genetically predisposed to succeed (intelligence, technical skills, whatever...)

If it's ultimately proved, with some magic intelligence test to show that certain groups or races are smarter than others.  And if, it's shown that more intelligent people succeed in gathering more wealth, then perhaps this is how the progressives will view the new world: once the perfect intelligence test is produced, and the various groups or 'races' are categorized into their proper rankings, I'm sure there's a progressive argument to tax the members of the smarter groups more and the members of the less smart groups, less.  Wealth redistribution based on IQ, so to speak.

You know, check a box on your tax return if you're Jewish to pay a higher tax rate.

---

by: gary @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:00:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for making my case ... (6.00 / 1)

Gary;

Your post did a much better job of illustrating my "class warfare" point than anything I could have written.

You say: "The prevailing view that explains the wealth 'inequality' chart referenced above, is, that in the US, the demand for higher skilled/educated people has outstripped supply, causing the income of the more skilled worker to rise. "

And you are correct.
That is the PREVAILING view precisly because, as entirly removed from reality as that explanation is, it has been painstakingly put forth in a concerted media blitz for decades. Somehow we in our society are to believe that merit is the basis of all opportunity and those experiencing benifit do so because of application of that merit. Who can argue with merit and behold the result.

The flaw is, your case is completely out of synch.
NO SKILL will place you into the top 1% of earners other than the skill of manipulating the power of money to ones own advantage. Thus to believe that the "prevailing view" came into the public perception by any other means than the propoganda wing of a CLASS WAR is foolish.
The war is on and has been for some time. The chart tells us when the war began and that time corresponds fairly well with the time the concept of CLASS struggle began being ridiculed within the democratic party.

---

by: nomad943 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:18:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

The flaw is, your case is completely out of synch.  NO SKILL will place you into the top 1% of earners other than the skill of manipulating the power of money to ones own advantage.

No skill?

---

by: gary @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:41:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Lol .. (0.00 / 0)

I was tempted to just laugh that off but when I got to thinking about it I thought of a point I wish to add to your observation ...

The entire concept of "profesional" sports. Obviously it has become the answer to a mass marketers wildest dreams but is there some point when it will end. Is there some dollar figure that they will cross where people will just say ENOUGH and turn off their TVs and go back to recognizing their own existance?

I remember a while back, I saw a study that was done in England about why the British people were not only willing to foot the price tag of the royal families extravagent lifestyles but why they ALSO genuinly felt admiration for the royals despite the cost to them.

The study concluded that the British as a whole enjoyed to witness the royals escapades because viewing their extravagent behavior added meaning to their otherwise dull pointless lives.

Go Patriots! Rah Rah

---

by: nomad943 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:59:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

From Krugman: (0.00 / 0)

...there's remarkably little direct evidence for the proposition that technological change has caused rising inequality.  The truth is that there's no easy way to measure the effect of technology on the markets; on this issue and others, economists mainly invoke technology to explain things they can't explain by other measurable forces.  The procedure goes something like this: First, assume that rising inequality is caused by by technology, goring international trade, and immigration.  Then, estimate the effects of trade and immigration - a tendentious procedure in itself, but we do at least have data on the volume of imports and the number of immigrants.  Finally, attribute whatever isn't explained by these measurable factors to technology.  That is, economists who assert that technological change is the main cause of rising inequality arrive at that conclusion by a process of exclusion:  They've concluded that trade and immigration aren't big enough to explain what has happened, so technology must be the culprit.

... It's true that the payoff to education has risen - but even the college educated have for the most part seen their wage gains lag behind rising productivity.  For example, the median college-educated man has seen his real income rise only 17 percent since 1973.
That's because the big gains in income have gone not to a broad group of well-paid workers but to a narrow group of extremely well-paid people.  In general those who receive enormous incomes are also well educated, but their gains aren't representative of the gains of educated workers as a whole.

...The observation that even highly educated Americans have, for the most part, seen their incomes fall behind the average, while a handful of people have done incredibly well, undercuts the case for skill-biased technological change as an explanation of inequality...

I would also add that the technological changes that are the prerequisite of such skill-biased changes are usually the identified culprit for the productivity increases, particularly in the 90's.  Problem is, if it truly is the result of such skills, we'd expect the productivity gains to be reflected in salaries.  Unfortunately they are not.  If they were, such skills would be a better differentiator of income than they, in fact, are.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 18:39:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's called history (0.00 / 0)

First, my reply wasn't geared toward you, so I hope you don't take it as that. I recognize you wouldn't put any stock in them, but the problem is a lot of people would. It was just a general statement against such practices.

When, in the past, "scientists" tried to come up with ways to find racial intelligence, those methods became excuses for why we treat certain races worse than others, especially in the past. They became justification for racism. When skin color started to become a weaker and weaker excuse, people tried to link head size to race, etc. etc. and would use all sorts of faulty methodology. You're absolutely right I would fight against any such studies - because (1) they can only possibly be used to justify racists and (2) it's methodology would almost certainly be flawed. As I said already, tests such as the IQ are flawed and are created in a way that benefits caucasions. I'd rather not bust out my notebook and texts on this very subject I took last year, but will if I must.

Finally, I also read an entire 15-20 page paper on how "general intelligence" hasn't been linked to any sort of DNA yet and is likely not a "trait" that can be passed down from generation to generation. What's fairly likely is that perhaps specific aspects of intelligence could be passed down - and it's much more likely that the environment one grows up in plays a far more signficant role in determining intelligence. I wish I saved a link to that paper, which was published online, but I think either Raj or Mr. Lynne posted it. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate a reply with it. (I'm pretty sure I found it at BMG.)

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 13:28:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Talk about bad science! (0.00 / 0)

I think the key point comes from this entry on the Half-sigma blog, cited by the Times article.

If it is true that natural selection favored higher intelligence in Asians and Europeans, we will probably find that for the vast majority of genes correlated with intelligence, the more intelligent variant of the gene will occur with greater frequency in Asian and European populations.

The blog then goes on to cite evidence that "the more intelligent variant of the gene" does not appear in any one race.

Classic example of science: testable prediction made and is falified by data.  At this point, the hypothesis that generates the data ("natural selection favored higher intelligencein Asians and Europeans") is supposed be abandoned.

Unfortunately, the author of this blog (and his fellow-travelers) don't seem to have done so. 

That's pretty bad science.

---

by: chapter1 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:32:38 AM CST

Oh, please... (0.00 / 0)

...this

Classic example of science: testable prediction made and is falified by data.

is nothing more than a caricature.  I've seen this formulation quite often from people who know nothing about science, and have generally found it lacking.  It isn't falsification of theories that is of interest.  What is of interest is that science continually updates its theories as further evidence is gathered.

BTW, if you actually know something about science, I'm sure that you can explain why a "magnetic field" is nothing more than a relativistic artifact.  The answer is actually quite simple.

---

by: raj @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:22:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We must open our eyes. (0.00 / 0)

The link is already established.  Look around.  The Ashkenazi are more represented than any other group in the forefront of science, business, government, art, law on a percentage of population basis.  Askhenazi perform significantly better on tests than others.  Does not Israel, with a population of  roughly six millions, contribute more than any other country to world culture on this same basis?

This is not raced-based opinion.  It is fact.  Fact is not based in race ideals.  To deny this fact is a race-based hatred.  It is for the Progressives recognise this fact but to treat all people as equals under the law.

---

by: bensmort @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:34:21 AM CST

No doubt they do well (0.00 / 0)

But I would contend it has absolutely, positively *nothing* to do with genetic-based intelligence, if that even exists. It's called "environmental factors." When you have intelligent family members, it only stands to reason that they'll usually have policies that lead to what our society values as intelligent children. They get tutors, the best teachers and parents that breath down their throat until their homework is done, or better yet - help their children complete it. They don't have to worry about whether or not there will be dinner on the table, or if their mother and father will be sober for the night.

Furthermore, just like in any population, there are going to be people who succeed and fail. I guarantee you that there are more people within that population that aren't at the forefront of "science, business, government, art [and] law," than the other way around. Just like any other ethnicity. Furthermore, there may be other reasons why there's a higher proportion. For example, there's a fairly high proportion of big game pitchers coming out of Texas - a la Jon Papelbon. Would anyone seriously suggest that it's in their DNA? No - environment and the size of Texas's population has a lot to do with it. In the Ashkenazi's case, perhaps it has to do with the fact that they've just established themselves as leaders in those areas. If your parents are doctors, you're much likely to become one yourself, after all.

Lastly, the things you mention is exactly what I talk about when I say intelligence tests are almost always flawed. While there are lots of intelligent people who are lawyers, artists and scientists, does it take any less intelligence to be, say, an expert hunter? Is Randy Moss not one of the most intelligent players in the game of football, understanding exactly what to do to take advantage of his opponents' games. Or Curt Schilling in being able to fool the entire MLB with his 88 mph fastball? Either of those two may score terribly on an IQ test, but there's no doubt of their absolute brilliance. The same with a genius hunter. It's just that tests like the IQ are geared toward reading certain intelligence, except those intelligences are biased toward age, ethnicity, language, and what humanity values and actually labels as "intelligent" activities, when other activities may take just as much intelligence in different areas.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 13:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The science is meaningless (6.00 / 1)

Any studies linking race to intelligence are going to be misunderstood by the general public and can only be used for bad purposes (such as justifying racism). The variance in intelligence within a race is larger than any differences in intelligence between races. Since most people do not understand statistics, they are not likely to understand how meaningless any measured differences are.

The standard deviation on IQ tests is supposed to be 10. If you found that the difference between two races was 5, even after controlling for all other factors, it still wouldn't matter. The jobs where having a high IQ are useful select for people that are several standard deviations above average already, so a difference in the mean of .5 standard deviations would have no measurable effect. When you are more than 3 standard deviations above average, sampling errors are more significant than actual population statistics. It becomes a Bernoulli process with a p of .01 or less, so the variance is equal to the mean and the standard deviation is much higher than the mean.

If there was a strong genetic basis to intelligence, people would already know about it. Smart people would only have smart children and dumb people would only have dumb children. The smart people would have killed the dumb people (either in warfare or in competition for resources). Why do you think Homo Sapiens killed the neanderthals? Any genetic factors that have a significant effect on intelligence were selected for thousands to millions of years ago. You'll find out more by looking at the differences between people and apes.

---

by: jkw @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 12:17:55 PM CST

I apologize if I'm going a bit far afield, but... (0.00 / 0)

...it is my understanding that a Bernoulli process is a discrete statistical series.  How does that translate to "intelligence*" scores, which are something of a continuous series?

*My opinion on "intelligence" scores is pretty much clear from above: worthless.  I'm not interested in rehashing that for purposes of this question.

---

by: raj @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 15:02:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Depends on your model (0.00 / 0)

You can consider looking for some trait in a population as a Bernoulli process. For each person that you test, there is some probability of that person having the desired trait. When you get to very small sample sizes, this will produce more accurate estimates of what to expect than distributional parameters. In this case, the desired trait is an intelligence above some level. I'm discussing the practical matters of determining who is qualified to perform some task, and assuming that some measurable intelligence is a good predictor of how qualified a person is, so that you could set a minimum intelligence score as a job requirement. In most work situations, work ethic matters more than intelligence, so these assumptions aren't very valid. But there is nothing good you can do with research of this nature unless you make these assumptions.

When you are selecting for 3 standard deviations above average, you are trying to find the top 1% of a population. Any person you select has about a 1% chance of being sufficiently above average. But the standard deviation is 10% on a Bernoulli process with p=.01. In other words, your sampling bias is larger than the effect you are measuring. The only way to get around that is to actually test the entire population (in this case that would include people who have already died and people who haven't been born yet). You need very large sample sizes to determine any differences that are 4 or 5 standard deviations above average. I don't think the US population is actually large enough to determine that any differences in intelligence that may exist between races is large enough to matter. I'm not sure the entire world population is large enough to do it either.

---

by: jkw @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 18:39:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Understood. Thanks for the explanation. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: raj @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 19:00:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]