Jump to content

User:Plusdown/RaceIQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question of whether there is a meaningful correlation between race and intelligence, and the causes of such a correlation if it exists, is one which is hotly debated both in the scholarly literature and in the public sphere.

The contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and importance, or lack of importance, of ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability, and whether race is a meaningful biological construct. The question of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability is seen as fundamental to understanding the debate.[1]

The modern controversy surrounding intelligence and race focuses on the results of intelligence quotient (IQ) studies conducted during the second half of the 20th century in the United States, Western Europe, and other industrialized nations.[2] There are also controversies over the definition of race, the definition of intelligence, and whether the intelligence quotient is a satisfactory measure of intelligence; see the respective articles on those subjects for more information.

This article first gives a brief history of viewpoints on the topic, followed by some of the most recent scientific data. Different interpretations of this data are then outlined, and finally an overview of the many controversies surrounding the subject is given.

History

[edit]

Theories about a relationship between race and intelligence have been the subject of speculation and debate since the 16th century.[3][4][disputed] Race and Slavery in the Middle East

Data

[edit]

In essence, we have to recognise that whether we view race as a biological reality or a social category, and whether we accept IQ tests as valid measures of intelligence or as silly bits of paper, there is a definite empirical correlation between race, as naively defined, and IQ test results. Arguments as to why this correlation is illusory (because, say, race doesn't exist, or IQ doesn't measure intelligence, or whatever) can be included later.

Here, we report only the data from the literature.

As far as the data goes, the best source to use would probably be the APA report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns', because:

  • it is comparatively recent
  • it is comparatively neutral
  • it is compiled by a professional body which operates directly in the field of psychometrics

I stress, a 'data' section should contain only data, and not analysis, interpretation, argumentation, counter-argumentation, or anything else. Just the results.

Environmental interpretations

[edit]

Include here interpretations which (obviously) regard environmental factors as being of primary importance in explaining the results contained in the 'data' section. Importantly, to accept environmental explanations of measured differences between, say, African Americans and Americans of European descent, one doesn't have to believe that race is a social construct (although many people do). The nature of race doesn't enter the picture here: these interpretations take race as a given, but argue that it is not genetic differences between races which cause the problem, so much as social differences (those who regard race to be meaningless can be dealt with later: especially since one coherently can regard race as biologically meaningingless, while still regarding intelligence as being hereditary and measured by IQ!). The arguments in both this section and the one below also implicitly assume that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence (i.e. there's no point arguing that, say, malnourishment causes lower IQ scores unless one thinks that IQ scores measure something interesting enough to bother explaining - no-one suggests it's a measure of nutrition).

There should be no 'criticism' subsection here containing hereditarians' criticisms of the views outlined: rather, if such criticisms are notable, they should be included in the paragraph dealing with the interpretation being criticised; is it the Manual of Style which says that these separate 'criticism' sections should be avoided where possible?

Hereditarian interpretations

[edit]

Here, interpretations which argue that between-group differences are hereditary. Mostly Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson, etc. The Bell Curve is more about how important IQ is in determining the course of one's life, than it is a detailed argument that the link between race and intelligence is genetically mediated. Hence the proper place to mention it would be later (see below).

Again, criticisms of these interpretations should not be in a separate section, but included with the views being criticised. And of supreme importance here is to avoid political criticism: in other words, it doesn't matter if Rushton runs the Pioneer Fund, or if Gottfredson got photographed wearing a Klan hood (she didn't, of course): if their research has been published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals - which in most cases it has, certainly their most important studies - then it merits inclusion as a serious scientific point of view, and only scholarly criticisms should be included in this section (the politics stuff should come later on).

Other interpretations

[edit]

Here, we have other notable interpretations, which seem mostly to come from non-psychologists (psychologists seem to opt for one or the other of the schools above).

For example, Gould's argument that IQ measures nothing real, and is a bit of statistical conjury. There are others with similar views,[5] but Gould's is probably the best, and most notable, example.

Also important to mention here is the view of many anthropologists, population geneticists and others, that 'race' isn't a biologically meaningful categorisation of human beings, and so any attribution of between-group differences to genes would be fallacious.

Again, criticisms of each of these point of view should be woven into their own paragraphs, not separated out, because that attracts drive-by trolling.

Controversy

[edit]

Obviously, this topic has some very deep political implications, whichever way the evidence points. Hence there has been heated political debate about the research itself.

Because the debate has occurred more in the public sphere than in the scholarly literature, it is often on a different 'level' to the scholarly debate.

To be mentioned here would be 19th century pseudoscience relating to this topic, and how it has been discredited. Then, how opponents of the genetic hypothesis often regard that hypothesis as being a modern form of scientific racism, etc. All the usual arguments about eugenics, the fact that the Pioneer Fund has given money to overtly political projects, Hitler, etc., should come here. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the scholarly debate; if Lynn supports eugenics, that's his prerogative...but that has nothing to do with his results on, say, the differences in IQ between different countries, which need to be criticised on the level of methodology, etc. (to do otherwise is fallacious, and to group political criticism with scientific results in the article is to perpetuate the fallacy).

Mention how the media gives support primarily to environmental interpretations (and not a little attention to Gould). Then, the Snyderman study suggesting that this support is primarily politically informed and has not much to do with the facts, along with a brief mention that the study has been criticised, and a link to the article on the study itself.

The Bell Curve controversy.

The James Watson controversy.

This section is not about 'criticism of the genetic hypothesis'. It attempts to document the controversy as it has played out in the popular arena (as opposed to the debate within the academy).

See also

[edit]

Theories of Race and Intelligence:

Publications about Race and Intelligence:

Other Correlations with Intelligence:

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Rushton J. Philippe and Jensen Arthur R."Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences In Cognitive Ability" p. 240 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235
  2. ^ "Black-White-East Asian IQ differences at least 50% genetic, major law review journal concludes" Innovations Report 2005-04-26
  3. ^ Andor, LE, ed. Aptitudes and Abilities of the Black Man in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1784-1963: An Annotated Bibliography. Johannesburg: National Institute for Personnel Research, 1966.
  4. ^ Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race
  5. ^ The Waning of I.Q. by David Brooks, The New York Times

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]

Collective statements

[edit]

Review papers

[edit]

Others

[edit]

{{Race and sex differences}} [[Category:Intelligence]] [[Category:Race and intelligence controversy| ]] [[fi:Rotu ja älykkyysosamäärä]] [[pl:Rasa a inteligencja]] [[sv:Ras och intelligens]] Anything else relevant.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Plusdown/RaceIQ&oldid=1168382994"