Who Owns the Future?

[bigbadwolf]

I don't know what the true distribution for intelligence is across races, but it's another thing entirely to ignore the possibility that it is different. There is no reason to bury our heads in the sand about this, as that only prevents an informed intelligent discussion, which is the best bet to actually change things.

For African-Americans it is 84 (the test is standardised so that white Americans score 100). Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are scoring 89. North-East Asians 105 and the small group of Ashkenazi Jews 114. Probably that's the reason why Jews, who constitute 2% of the US population, account for 20% of the professorships. And 60% of Columbia's undergrad population.

Bear in mind that Africans coming to Europe and the USA for education are probably among the top one per cent in intelligence in Africa and hence are hardly representative. African IQs vary from 59 to 82, depending on the part of Africa they live in. I think there's more detail in the interesting but flawed book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Lynn and Vanhanen.

The argument that since the brain is physiological, intelligence may differ among ethnic groups was put forward by Sir James Watson (the Nobel Prize winner in biology for the double helix) a few years ago. The establishment descended on him like a ton of bricks. These are taboo arguments and the discussion of varying performance is itself taboo except in terms of institutional and social racism.

I believe in employing Ockham's razor: What's the simplest explanation for differing academic performance across ethnic groups? Variation in inherent ability seems to be the simplest and most plausible. Other ethnic groups have also faced the brunt of discrimination, so while this may be a factor it is not to my mind the only one or even the main one. Until the 1960s, for example, most elite colleges (Harvard, Yale, Columbia) had Jewish quotas.

 

[bigbadwolf]

If you teach 6 kids from 6 different races mathematics for the same length of time, at the same age, and make sure they all live in the same type of environment, and have the same level of support, and the same level of constant discrimination/ or not, then you may be surprised that there may not be that much of a difference.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study suggests otherwise. If you talk to teachers in the front-line trenches of "diverse" schools (which I've been myself for a while), when they're candid they admit there are differences. But because of the suffocating blanket of pious and sanctimonious political correctness coming from politicians and liberals with their own axe to grind and no first-hand experience (they all live in all-white neighborhoods and send their children to either suburban or private schools), we can't talk about it openly.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

A look at why students in Shanghai performed well on the test

The Shanghai students performed well, experts say, for the same reason students from other parts of Asia — including South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong — do: Their education systems are steeped in discipline, rote learning and obsessive test preparation.

Public school students in Shanghai often remain at school until 4 p.m., watch very little television and are restricted by Chinese law from working before the age of 16.

Shanghai Schools Push Students to Top of Tests - NYTimes.com

 

[eng]

You are having a knee-jerk overreaction and are apparently arguing (poorly) against nobody.

There are easily measurable physical attributes that vary in statistically significant ways across different races, things such as height, limb/torso length ratio, proportion of Type IIB muscle fibers. Why would we assume that intelligence is different? Intelligence after all derives from a physical construct, the brain.

You make a fair statement that we can't ignore environmental variables and I certainly agree. Beliefs (racist attitudes being a subset) also have an effect on performance on tests, there have been psychological studies.

I don't know what the true distribution for intelligence is across races, but it's another thing entirely to ignore the possibility that it is different. There is no reason to bury our heads in the sand about this, as that only prevents an informed intelligent discussion, which is the best bet to actually change things.

Bringing genetics into the discussion is a bad idea that lacks merit. Even many famous people who tried to propose such arguments have been time and again rejected by the society.
People without legs have climbed mountains. It is foolish to blame a community being behind because of lacking intelligence.
Moderators should ban such postings.
Hard work and sincerity has been lifting millions out of poverty in countries like India, for example.
In my judgment, the key reason for certain communities being behind in the US is the social neglect, day to day discrimination, and non-inclusive nature of the society, despite the excellent legal protection and formal laws at workplaces.

 

[euroazn]

Moderators should ban such postings.

No they shouldn't. It's a perfectly reasonable argument... our genes our different. Why shouldn't average intelligence be different?

 

[Noko]

Bringing genetics into the discussion is a bad idea that lacks merit. Even many famous people who tried to propose such arguments have been time and again rejected by the society.
People without legs have climbed mountains. It is foolish to blame a community being behind because of lacking intelligence.
Moderators should ban such postings.
Hard work and sincerity has been lifting millions out of poverty in countries like India, for example.
In my judgment, the key reason for certain communities being behind in the US is the social neglect, day to day discrimination, and non-inclusive nature of the society, despite the excellent legal protection and formal laws at workplaces.

And that may be a problem. Why should a certain topic be forbidden from being investigated just because the findings might not be politically correct? I have no problem with the fact that East-Asians are statistically (and perhaps genetically) smarter than me. If anything, such knowledge gives me even more of a drive to be the best that I can be. That isn't to stick it to any race, but to bring myself up relative to the entire population of the world.

As for banning such postings, no. We are having a civilized discussion here, on an education forum, and if that isn't enough this thread is in the Off Topic subforum.

 

[eng]

No they shouldn't. It's a perfectly reasonable argument... our genes our different. Why shouldn't average intelligence be different?

Disagree. We need to be more sensitized. This is a Quant forum, imagine how some aspiring quant from the communities being discussed would feel seeing these foolish comments. Many big names have lost their fame trying to propose such arguments. I am talking about some top of the top names. Shockley is one example. NO ONE would buy these arguments in a modern society. My understanding is that most people who paint brushes over communities or races are often lazy people trying to either claim credit for or feel good about things that they never did, or trying to hide their weaknesses by siding with certain communities. Your question may be reasonable, but I am just saying that those who label communities need to be more sensitive.

 

[euroazn]

We shouldn't sacrifice correctness for politically correctness.

 

[eng]

And that may be a problem. Why should a certain topic be forbidden from being investigated just because the findings might not be politically correct? I have no problem with the fact that East-Asians are statistically (and perhaps genetically) smarter than me. If anything, such knowledge gives me even more of a drive to be the best that I can be. That isn't to stick it to any race, but to bring myself up relative to the entire population of the world.

As for banning such postings, no. We are having a civilized discussion here, on an education forum, and if that isn't enough this thread is in the Off Topic subforum.

I don't have a problem with labeling communities positively (e.g. calling Chinese smarter, etc.), but one should judge the ramifications of assigning negative labels like calling an entire community less intelligent. This kind of racially biased thinking is a problem in the society, and I suspect may be partly responsible for preventing the upliftment of certain communities in the US.

 

[Noko]

I don't have a problem with labeling communities positively (e.g. calling Chinese smarter, etc.), but one should judge the ramifications of assigning negative labels like calling an entire community less intelligent. This kind of racially biased thinking is a problem in the society, and I suspect may be partly responsible for preventing the upliftment of certain communities in the US.

If one community has a label of being more intelligent, does that not make anything below it "less intelligent"?

 

[eng]

If one community has a label of being more intelligent, does that not make anything below it "less intelligent"?

All I am saying is that we could easily end up offending people who belong to a certain race (say for example, African Americans). This is called non-inclusiveness. Imagine that in a group discussion if you are talking bad about someone's country, could not that offend and exclude someone?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Let's not get trapped into "racial stereotype" kind of discussion. There is no reason to not have a level-headed, respectful discussion here. I draw the line at name calling, personal attack which is extremely rare here on Quantnet.

That said, I'll let you gents carry on with your discussion. At the end of the day, let's hope that it will make everyone more tolerance towards people around you.

 

[Yike Lu]

When I say "true distribution" I mean corrected for socioeconomic factors. BBW, are the numbers you quote corrected? Would be nice to see the source.

Positive racial stereotypes necessarily imply negative ones. If someone is smarter, then that means someone else is less smart. If there is an above average intelligence, then necessarily there exists an average intelligence and a below average intelligence.

To say we should positively discriminate (eg affirmative action) is just as dangerous as negative discrimination because once again, one implies the other. Suppose you had segregated water fountains as the south did for a long time. Assume the black and white water fountains were exactly the same in all properties except being segregated (were not worse or better). Do you think it makes a difference that they are the same thing? It's the segregation itself...

Fairness derives from fairness in the RULES, or at least that's supposedly the American way. We are all given the same opportunities by law (not by birth mind you).

People are different, get over it. What's important is acknowledging the differences while giving a fair treatment (fair rules).

 

[bigbadwolf]

When I say "true distribution" I mean corrected for socioeconomic factors. BBW, are the numbers you quote corrected? Would be nice to see the source.

The notorious book by Herrnstein and Murray, titled "The Bell Curve," gives sources:

The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was

lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

These figures vary a bit, depending on when and where populations are tested but they don't vary significantly. Correcting for socio-economic factors is something I cannot do, though doubtless it exists in the literature. I can do little better than refer you to Rushton and Jensen's 60-page survey paper, Thirty years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability.

I recall Rushton -- in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior -- citing experiments on new-born babies. White, Asian, and Black babies apparently react differently -- the excuse of cultural factors cannot be brought in. ​

What I'm saying does not mean there is not endemic racism in the USA. As Amnesty International has declared in its reports on more than one occasion, African-Americans are more likely to get the death sentence (in the states where they have the death penalty). An African-American college graduate makes on average the same as a white with a high-school education. Differences in unemployment levels suggest not only differences in educational attainment and intelligence but deep-seated race prejudice. An African-American trying to hail a taxi in NYC is likely to be less successful than a white or Asian. They are also subjected to higher levels of police harassment. ​

I reiterate, however, that innate differences are to be expected among populations that have lived in different environments for tens of thousands of years. Differing environments select for different qualities. It's naive to say we're all the same because we're all homo sapiens.​

​

 

[euroazn]

I reiterate, however, that innate differences are to be expected among populations that have lived in different environments for tens of thousands of years. Differing environments select for different qualities. It's naive to say we're all the same because we're all homo sapiens.

Agreed. I think a great case in point is the world Jewish population. We've actually been oppressed longer and more severely than, say, the African or Hispanic population, yet even in countries where Hispanics or Africans are the majority, Jews typically find themselves in the upper socioeconomic classes... so it must be something innate....

 

[Andy D.]

Being an avid amateur historian, the subject of genetics (well actually mDNA) is something of interest to me. The work of Brian Sykes of Oxford Uni is fascinating as he uses mDNA (which is only passed through the maternal line) to map migration patterns over thousands of years.

Which brings me to IQ test....

Didn't Binet (the inventor of the IQ test for the French gov) caution against using the tests for ranking the general populace?

It seems to me before we debate whether group A has a superior intellect to group B, we should question whether the tests are even really that scientific.

After all, take the rise of Western Civilization from the Renaissance onwards. Someone like Jarrod Diamond for example would argue that the geography and resources of Western Europe was integral in the rise of the civilizations and further the institutions that allowed everything and everyone from Guggenheim, Leonardo and Bach through to Paine, Huxley and Darwin to flourish.

Whilst it was popular in the late 1800's through to the 50's to believe in ideas of racial superiority, Eugenics etc. we've seen this to be false. The very concept of race is of course non-scientific.

I may be wrong, but I think the concept of IQ seems slightly flawed. With regards to the Jewish contributions to science and similar, I would imagine culture within the community and attitudes to education must be a huge factor.

After all there must be myriad people out there with Ashkenazic genes who aren't even aware of it. An example that comes to mind is from the Nat Geo/IBM DNA database that is currently under construction. A Nat Geo TV show examined the mDNA of a number of New Yorkers. One chap who was Turkish, turned out to have DNA commonly found in Askenazi Jews. He was completely unaware of this fact.
If said gentleman had taken an IQ test, unaware of his families history, would he have been considered Asian, European or Jewish and which bench mark would he have been tested against?

Personally I'd take the IQ test concept with a pinch of salt. If anybody has an solid Neuroscience in favour of a different in intellect based upon genetics I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[euroazn]

I may be wrong, but I think the concept of IQ seems slightly flawed. With regards to the Jewish contributions to science and similar, I would imagine culture within the community and attitudes to education must be a huge factor.

After all there must be myriad people out there with Ashkenazic genes who aren't even aware of it. An example that comes to mind is from the Nat Geo/IBM DNA database that is currently under construction. A Nat Geo TV show examined the mDNA of a number of New Yorkers. One chap who was Turkish, turned out to have DNA commonly found in Askenazi Jews. He was completely unaware of this fact.
If said gentleman had taken an IQ test, unaware of his families history, would he have been considered Asian, European or Jewish and which bench mark would he have been tested against?

Personally I'd take the IQ test concept with a pinch of salt. If anybody has an solid Neuroscience in favour of a different in intellect based upon genetics I'd be interested in reading it.

Very fair points.

 

[bigbadwolf]

It seems to me before we debate whether group A has a superior intellect to group B, we should question whether the tests are even really that scientific.

"Superior" and "inferior" indicate value judgements. Let us say "different." There is correlation bertween IQ performance and academic achievement. More generally, for example, the US Army some years ago instituted a cut-off point of IQ 80: it found it was taking too long to train people below that level. Again, not saying "good or "bad": merely "different."

After all, take the rise of Western Civilization from the Renaissance onwards. Someone like Jared Diamond for example would argue that the geography and resources of Western Europe was integral in the rise of the civilizations and further the institutions that allowed everything and everyone from Guggenheim, Leonardo and Bach through to Paine, Huxley and Darwin to flourish.

Diamond doesn't want to acknowlege innate genetic differences among ethnic groups. A review by Rushton of Diamond's book.

Whilst it was popular in the late 1800's through to the 50's to believe in ideas of racial superiority, Eugenics etc. we've seen this to be false. The very concept of race is of course non-scientific.

Yes, "race" is a fuzzy construct. One day we will have more precise genetic markers. That doesn't mean innate differences among ethnic groups has in any sense been shown to be false -- it is unfashionable, yes, and considered in poor taste to discuss it.

I may be wrong, but I think the concept of IQ seems slightly flawed. With regards to the Jewish contributions to science and similar, I would imagine culture within the community and attitudes to education must be a huge factor.

Not saying IQ measures "intelligence" (whatever that is); merely that there's a recognised correlation between IQ performance and academic success.

Personally I'd take the IQ test concept with a pinch of salt. If anybody has an solid Neuroscience in favour of a different in intellect based upon genetics I'd be interested in reading it.

As far as I know, we are not yet at that stage. We can see differences among groups (empirically), but don't understand them in terms of differences in DNA. If someone knows different, let me know.

 

[ThinkDifferent]

Agreed. I think a great case in point is the world Jewish population. We've actually been oppressed longer and more severely than, say, the African or Hispanic population, yet even in countries where Hispanics or Africans are the majority, Jews typically find themselves in the upper socioeconomic classes... so it must be something innate....

sure. this innate thing is the fact that jewish people, like all minorities, tend to support each other by discriminating others.

Like Horowitz said (who had a great sense of humor): "To make it to the elite pianists in USSR one had to be either gay or jewish. And I am both )"

And please....saying that jewish people were "oppressed longer and more severely than Africans" is just mind boggling....

Sometimes I have a feeling that jewish people haven't learned anything from Holocaust by making exactly the same mistake nazis did...

Trying to find evidence of some "innate" superiority of one race/nation over others historically always ended in a rather tragic fashion.

 

[euroazn]

sure. this innate thing is the fact that jewish people, like all minorities, tend to support each other by discriminating others.

Like Horowitz said (who had a great sense of humor): "To make it to the elite pianists in USSR one had to be either gay or jewish. And I am both )"

And please....saying that jewish people were "oppressed longer and more severely than Africans" is just mind boggling....

Sometimes I have a feeling that jewish people haven't learned anything from Holocaust by making exactly the same mistake nazis did...

Trying to find evidence of some "innate" superiority of one race/nation over others historically always ended in a rather tragic fashion.

I note to the jury who used the word or even concept of superiority
And can you explain "And please....saying that jewish people were "oppressed longer and more severely than Africans" is just mind boggling...."?
Ever since the roman empire we've been persecuted, used as scapegoats for god knows what (during the plague, despite the pope pointing out that Jews died in equal proportions, for example), barred from many types of jobs (by law), etc. Not to mention the holocaust, where half of the world's Jewish population was murdered. What's so mind boggling?