'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
-
“This is what I meant when I said that there are arguments that IQ tests measure modernity..”
I think that education is one explanation given, in addition to things like better nutrition (average height has apparently increased also) and more environmental stimulation (video games?).
There are some interesting biological 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.”
Also, 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”
‘Intelligence and neural efficiency: Further evidence of the influence of task content and sex on the brain–IQ relationship’ Cognitive Brain Research
Volume 25, Issue 1, September 2005, Pages 217-225Linda Gottfredson writes about this also, in terms of how well psychometric tests measure ‘g’:
Article by Linda Gottfredson discussing how ‘g’ can be measured by psychometric tests:
…
“Some critics of intelligence research maintain that the notion of general intelligence is illusory: that no such global mental capacity exists and that apparent “intelligence” is really just a by-product of one’s opportunities to learn skills and information valued in a particular cultural context. True, the concept of intelligence and the way in which individuals are ranked according to this criterion could be social artifacts. But the fact that g is not specific to any particular domain of knowledge or mental skill suggests that g is independent of cultural content, including beliefs about what intelligence is. And tests of different social groups reveal the same continuum of general intelligence. This observation suggests either that cultures do not construct g or that they construct the same g. Both conclusions undercut the social artifact theory of intelligence.Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon. In the past decade, studies by teams of researchers in North America and Europe have linked several attributes of the brain to general intelligence. After taking into account gender and physical stature, brain size as determined by magnetic resonance imaging is moderately correlated with IQ (about 0.4 on a scale of 0 to 1). So is the speed of nerve conduction. The brains of bright people also use less energy during problem solving than do those of their less able peers. And various qualities of brain waves correlate strongly (about 0.5 to 0.7) with IQ: the brain waves of individuals with higher IQs, for example, respond more promptly and consistently to simple sensory stimuli such as audible clicks. These observations have led some investigators to posit that differences in g result from differences in the speed and efficiency of neural processing. If this theory is true, environmental conditions could influence g by modifying brain physiology in some manner.
Studies of so-called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs), conducted by Jensen and others, are bridging the gap between the psychological and the physiological aspects of g. These mental tasks have no obvious intellectual content and are so simple that adults and most children can do them accurately in less than a second. In the most basic reaction-time tests, for example, the subject must react when a light goes on by lifting her index finger off a home button and immediately depressing a response button. Two measurements are taken: the number of milliseconds between the illumination of the light and the subject’s release of the home button, which is called decision time, and the number of milliseconds between the subject’s release of the home button and pressing of the response button, which is called movement time.
In this task, movement time seems independent of intelligence, but the decision times of higher-IQ subjects are slightly faster than those of people with lower IQs. As the tasks are made more complex, correlations between average decision times and IQ increase. These results further support the notion that intelligence equips individuals to deal with complexity and that its influence is greater in complex tasks than in simple ones.
The ECT-IQ correlations are comparable for all IQ levels, ages, genders and racial-ethnic groups tested. Moreover, studies by Philip A. Vernon of the University of Western Ontario and others have shown that the ECT-IQ overlap results almost entirely from the common g factor in both measures. Reaction times do not reflect differences in motivation or strategy or the tendency of some individuals to rush through tests and daily tasks—that penchant is a personality trait. They actually seem to measure the speed with which the brain apprehends, integrates and evaluates information. Research on ECTs and brain physiology has not yet identified the biological determinants of this processing speed. These studies do suggest, however, that g is as reliable and global a phenomenon at the neural level as it is at the level of the complex information processing required by IQ tests and everyday life…."
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
-
There will be time for that. Let us perfect our methods.
You don’t want to sail into a stormy sea in an unfinished vessel.
-
Per: let me introduce you to Dave Brubeck and Claude Bolling.
-
Hi Per:
I am Dave Brubeck
and I am Claude Bolling
-
Daniel Finkelstein in Saturday’s Times wrote about this exchange between Steven Rose and Stephen Ceci/Wendy Williams.
Should we research inherited intelligence? Quote:
“In a February edition of Nature, the neuroscientist and radical Professor Steven Rose argues not simply that it is wrong to suggest any link between intelligence and race but that it is wrong even for this to be a topic of research. He writes: “Are there some areas of potential knowledge that scientists should not seek out? Or, if they do, should they keep the knowledge secret, hidden from hoi polloi?”
Extraordinarily, having dubbed anyone who is not a scientist “hoi polloi”, he concludes that the answer is yes.
Rose makes a few reasonable points on the way to this unreasonable conclusion. The common measure of intelligence, IQ, is notoriously slippery. It is clear that environmental factors play a heavy role in test results, and that may account for any differences between groups. Race is also very slippery, with scholars questioning the extent and consistency of genetic differences between groups. And he questions the motivations of those engaged in this research (some of whose motivations definitely deserve questioning).
Yet, after that, Rose’s argument jumps off the highboard. As Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams, of Cornell University, point out in their reply in Nature, there have long been folk rumours of genetic differences in intelligence between races. Science can subject these ugly innuendos to proper scrutiny. The irony of Rose’s position is that the very research he opposes confirms his assertion that there is no link.
While reaching this position much has been learnt. Some of the most important advances in understanding IQ — for instance, the work of the moral philosopher James Flynn, who showed how IQ test results in the US have risen over time — have come from examining the hypotheses of those who argue for the racial link to intelligence. Silencing scientists and subjecting free inquiry to a political test is a very dangerous idea indeed."
Also see: Steven Rose makes a habit of controversial pronouncements.
-
Anonymous
Who cares what Rose thinks? His “Students for Democratic Society” Marxist rhetoric might have excited the excitable in the 1970s, but was tired and uninformed in the 1980s, and evidence has further accrued against it in the 25 years since. Students don’t have a problem hearing about the heritability of intelligence or other human characteristics, as the findings regarding the heritability of individual differences is sufficiently nuanced (particularly for unique gene-environment effects) to leave plenty of room for many other influences. Rose has also dismissed evolutionary psychology from his ex-Cathedra position, to resounding indifference by the scientific world who find evolutionary theories some of the most productive for predicting and understanding human behaviour. He cites ‘boo’-academics that might upset people who don’t read the empirical literature on the subject, but his arguments notably avoid addressing the scientific issues within the intelligence literature. Most of the intellectual world has thankfully moved on from this radical posturing.
-
Per, you rather show your musical prejudices. Check out Dave Brubeck, Bill Evans, Pat Metheny, Joe Zawinul, etc. I hope you don’t make the mistake of thinking “blue men can’t play the whites”; myths of ‘authenticity’ and ‘primitivism’ often limit open-minded appreciation (http://fakingit.typepad.com/). Just graze on what’s out there and enjoy what lies pleasantly on your senses. That goes for for all cross-racial aesthetic judgements. It’ll open your world up wonderfully.
-
To Peter Kuperis: check out the references of Ben Richards! James Flynn has noticed an interesting fact, but he has not been able to explain it and his own discussions about IQ are highly problematic. IF IQ would be a product of education, there would be lots of ways to check this out. And all these ways have been tried. IQ is a field where there are tons of solid, cumulative research. Too much, actually, because many critics have a good reason for not being aware of it.
If you want to check one text only, go to Deary (Intelligence, a short introduction), or Jensen (The g factor). It should be enough to show you that most (if not all) of the usual arguments against IQ (among others, those by Steven Rose) have been checked out by scientists. This is not a field of sociology (I am a sociologist) where you can always circumvent an argument by saying that you meant something else or starting to talk about something else. Quite honestly: I have yet to find a critique of IQ which has not already been refuted by empirical research. Those of Rose were refuted about 30 years ago… -
An example
Kuperis writes: “One explanation I have read is that in the 20th century we learned to think in abstract categories which is the way an IQ test expects you to think. But this hasn’t always been so. For example, the “correct” answer to “How are dogs and rabbits alike?” is that they are mammals. A 17th century person might have answered “You use dogs to hunt rabbits”. This answer is based on a functional understanding rather than using the “correct” categories. Is the person who answers this way less intelligent or less “modern”? This is what I meant when I said that there are arguments that IQ tests measure modernity..”
This is an example of a culture-related measurement used in some IQ tests and appropriate when you measure people with roughly the same cultural background. But if we want to compare the IQs of people with very different backgrounds, we either use tests that do not require such “modern” knowledge. The point with IQ is measure ability to function in previously unknown situations. There are tests which are very good in comparing people from extremely different cultural backgrounds.
As to modernity vs antiquity, this is the Flynn effect problem. Somebody sais that if we counted backwards, Socrates would have an IQ of -2000. This is obviously nonsense. Socrates was certainly extremely intelligent and would have passed an appropriate test without any problems. So the Flynn effect must be spurious: people do not really become more intelligent, but they are getting better points in the tests. Still, the tests are very good and reliable (better than blood pressure measurements, for instance!). So there is a problem, which affects comparisons over time, or comparisons between generations. It isn’t food, it isn’t modernity, it isn’t education, it isn’t better ability in abstract thinking, it isn’t evolution of the brain.
But it is something which would need to be studied, which would need lots of funding and competitive research. And the person who finds the explanation, should deserve a Nobel prize… -
Reply to post by Anonymous of Mar. 01, 09:
Heritable traits as such, do not exist at all. Therefore, there can be no heritable intelligence, and, since there is no such thing as heritable intelligence, there can be no such thing as heritable difference in intelligence!
I stressed in an earlier post that all individual traits (including behavioral traits), of all living organisms, develop ontogenetically (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environment (nature & nurture).
But you still do not understand that.
Results
-
