'Untouchable' science
Nicola Jones
Tuesday, 03 February 2009 19:01 UTC
Should scientists study race and IQ?
A pair of opposing commentaries published in Nature (vol 457; 12 Feb 2009) tackle the sensitive proposition that gender- or race-linked differences in intelligence ought to be studied.
Steven Rose argues that studies investigating possible links between race, gender and intelligence do no good to science or society. Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams argue that such research is both morally defensible and important for the pursuit of truth.
The commentaries can be read on Nature’s website (password required).
Neither party saw the other’s argument before publication. They have the opportunity to respond to each other and to continue the debate online here, where we also invite contributions from our readers.
Updated 11 February 2009 23:55 UTC
-
Replies
This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.
Jump to resultsResults
-
“The authors do us a disservice with this sentence: “Watson later clarified in a statement that he does not believe Africans to be genetically inferior, but this had little impact on the controversy.” If ever there has existed an insincere, pro forma apology, it was this. It had little impact on the controversy because it was a lie: Watson obviously believes Africans to be genetically inferior; the original statement has no other possible meaning.”
Here is the actual text of James Watson’s apology printed in the Independent,
“To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief…
The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity…. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."As Jason Malloy pointed out:
“Watson would only be retracting his intelligence claims if he considered those claims tantamount to claims of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’, which he clearly emphasizes he doesn’t. Watson is saying that questioning that all races are equal in intelligence is not racism, it is trying to figure out why the world looks the way it does, with the greatest engineers and the greatest musicians disproportionately coming, in a systematic way, from different racial backgrounds. In other words culturally separated people of African descent have been musical innovators across a diverse range of cultures (in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, North and South America, and the Caribbean), while culturally separated people of East Asian descent have excelled at math and science across a diverse range of cultures (in Asia, Europe, North and South America, and the Caribbean).
This is not a claim of racial ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’, either in terms of legal worth or even in terms of overall talent – since groups all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is simply the recognition that people of different genetic heritage, on average, reveal different talents wherever they are found in the world, and there is one explanation that best accounts for these observations: evolution.
In other words, Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished."
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
-
“The whiff of racism has attached itself to the most notorious of the proponents of genetic explanations for IQ differences for a good reason.”
Who are these notorious proponents you are referring too? Or are you just poisoning the well to shut down debate?
-
I am disappointed that Nature has opened this debate with two inputs which are both critical of IQ research and its results. The first (Rose) represents an ingnorant opposition which dates from the 1970’s and has not learned anything since; the other is a more modern version where “good” IQ research is separated from the “bad” (Jensen, Lynn, Rushton etc.) Still Ceci & al think that IQ differences in populations are due to environmental causes, which is certainly not the case. And they agree with Rose that IQ/g is actually not very relevant. Even this has been shown to be false by both research and everyday practice. Every academic knows that an intelligent student is a very valuable resource, who cannot be “manufactured” or constructed/cultivated at will. Yet intelligence as a capacity is universally abhorred as a taboo subject precisely in the universities.
It is a shame that people like Rose who very clearly are only extremely emotional about the subject but have no idea what is going on, can express opinions which are clearly not only innocent but influential in creating an atmosphere of fear and repression. -
Scientific research that is curiosity driven as well as research motivated by broadly humanitarian aims deserves institutional and public support. Given the history cited by both sides in this debate, it is difficult to see research into gender, race, and IQ as motivated by pure curiosity.
Is it motivated by humanitarian aims—the enhancement of quality of life and the provision of opportunities for all? If so, surely those who thinks this field worth time, effort and funding could explain how knowledge of group differences will open up opportunities for, and enhance the welfare of groups that currently suffer social and economic deficits. -
I think I.Q.test not reliable,how can you compare poor boy living in slum,and rich boy living in high society on I.Q.test this in unjustice on poor boy.History telling us again and again that anyb boy get same facility he can also show same clverness as a rich boy.
Another factor is I.Q.test is not only quality onwhich anyone progressin life. I think I.Q. test is fade created by those who believe in eugenics movement which deeply rooted in white men`s psyche. -
I haven’t read any of the comments, nor the posts that triggered the comments. And I don’t need to read any of it.
IQ should not be studied in conjunction with anything, for the very simple reason that there is no unequivocal definition of IQ. Scientists cannot study anything that is undefinable, and no scientist knows what it is.
It is pure counter-scientific stupidity to assume that IQ can be determined by the way a person answers an arbitrarily chosen questionnaire!
Come to think of it, we do not have a viable definition of race, either!
-
P.S. to my previous comment:
All individual traits (including behavioral traits) f all living organisms, develop ontogenetically, (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environment!
Years ago, when most Yemeni Jews were brought to Israel, it occurred to some "experts’ to compare the IQ of native Israeli kids, and Jewish kids from Yemen. The kids were shown a drawing of a boy’s face with only one eye, and asked whether anything was missing in the picture. Native Israelis said the boy was missing an eye. Yemeni kids said he was missing his side-locks.
At that time an eye disease which caused one eye to deteriorate and close, was very common in Yemen. But a Jewish kid without side-locks, (the locks of hair which orthodox Jewish men wear on each side of their head since childhood), was never to be seen.
This should suffice to demonstrate the validity, and value, of IQ tests!
-
Research is generally undertaken to answer a question.
In order for the question to be meaningful, it should have some utility – e.g. designing specific teaching methods for special populations, determining the best medication for a condition, etc.
Considering the wide range of “IQ” scores, and the small difference in means between any particularly identified populations, the study of IQ differences between “races” has no utility in education, job training, hiring, or any other field. The overlap is too great, even if there were any any meaningful classification/distinction of “race.” (Which there is not).
It is difficult to escape the suspicion of a hidden agenda in research which clearly has no manifest utility.
I am reminded of the “multiple origin of humans” hypothesis which, I believe, has been laid to rest by genetic studies. That hypothesis, unsupported by any analogs in any other evolutionary line, and without a shred of evidence that there could be a phenomenon of “genetic convergence,” was (is) a transparent attempt to form a “scientific” basis for racism.To restate my question: What is served by lumping hetrogenous groups into simplistic categories based on superficial features and/or geographic origin and/or linguistic origin of surname, and/or sex, and attempting to estabilish that these pseudo-groups are distinguishable through the use of a psychometric instrument which is significantly culture- and language-bound to the group which calls itself “superior?”
I respectfully submit that such “research” has no value, may have a hidden agenda, and should not be supported by public funds.
I also support complete freedom for anyone wanting to make a fool of him/herself by undertaking such an endeavor, as long as their publications meet scientific standards, not political agendas. Who knows, it might eventually turn out to be useful in some manner unforseen.
-
“the wide range of “IQ” scores, and the small difference in means between any particularly identified populations, the study of IQ differences between “races” has no utility in education, job training, hiring, or any other field.”
If policy makers simply looked at individuals that would be fine, but instead they look at group outcomes. Group disparities are then attributed to societal or institutional unfairness. This assumes complete equality across groups.
Some recent examples include an article in the Orlando Sentinel last week about the lack of non-Asian minorities in advanced classes. A similar thing happened last year in New York where complaints were made about ‘Gifted programs’ as parents say they have discriminated against black and Hispanic children.
Professor Linda Gottfredson has written about this extensively.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. Pages 517-554 in C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005cognitivediversity.pdf
Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Unmasking the egalitarian fiction. Duke Gifted Letter, 6(3), 10.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2006DukeGifted.pdf
Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Schools and the g factor. The Wilson Quarterly, Summer, 35-45.
Won the 2005 Mensa Press Award.http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004schools&g.pdf
Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Realities in desegregating gifted education. In D. Booth & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 139-155). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004desegregatingGiftedEducation.pdf
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. Pages 24-40 in N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003giftedpolitics.pdf
-
“IQ should not be studied in conjunction with anything, for the very simple reason that there is no unequivocal definition of IQ. Scientists cannot study anything that is undefinable, and no scientist knows what it is.”
There are some interesting physical correlates.
See Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2007), 30:135-154 Cambridge University Press:
“Overall, we conclude that modern neuroimaging techniques are beginning to articulate a biology of intelligence. We propose that the P-FIT provides a parsimonious account for many of the empirical observations, to date, which relate individual differences in intelligence test scores to variations in brain structure and function.”
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=2E0FAE4D…
62ECC1DEF8ED3885C4379E1.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1305780Also, EEG studies show increased neural efficiency in the cortex of ‘brighter’ individuals:
“In the field of physiological study of human intelligence, strong evidence of a more efficient operation (i.e., less activation) of the brain in brighter individuals (the neural efficiency hypothesis) can be found”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?ob=ArticleURL&udi=B6SYV-4GNCG7K-1…
There has been some interesting recent research by Ian Deary investigating why more intelligent people tend to have greater longevity.
Aside from the obvious (they avoid risks/eat healthier food etc) Deary suggests there could be some overall fitness factor, as basic reaction time predicts longevity even better than IQ tests. Gottfredson and Miller also suggest this idea of an overall fitness factor with their recent paper showing a strong correlation between intelligence and semen quality.
recentlyhttp://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary%20(2008)%20Nature%20essay%20why%20do%20intelligent%20people%20live%20longer.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2008semen.pdf
There is also circumstantial evidence from twin studies & transracial adoption studies.
“Heritability estimtes for intelligence quotient (IQ) range from 0.50 to 0.80. This makes IQ a suitable target for attempts to identify the specific genes involved.” Chorney et al, Role of the cholinergic muscarinic 2 receptor (CHRM@) gene in cognition. Molecular Psychiatry (2003) 8. 10-13.
“A substantial body of literature from twin, family and adoption studies documents significant genetic effects on human intelligence. Heritability estimates range from 40 to 80% and meta-analyses suggest an overall heritability of around 50%” Dick et al, (2006) “Association of CHRM2 with IQ: Converging Evidence for Genes Influencing Intelligence.” Behavioral Genetics.
“Multivariate genetic analyses indicate that general intelligence is highly heritable, and that the overlap in the cognitive processes is twice as great as the overall phenotypic overlap, with genetic correlations averaging around .80.”
Plomin et al (2004) “A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase genes is associated with cognitive ability,” Molecular Psychology 9, 582-586.
Results
-
