Race and Intelligence

November 18, 2007 11:45 AM

Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Was Watson right?
posted by landis (473 comments total)

IQ tests aren't even close to being standardized across all those groups, and I believe I read something that mentioned there is quite often cultural biases in questioning.

Didn't I also read that the 100 point on IQ tests is set at the median and that it is adjusted every few years?

I'm also in more of the camp that critical thinking can be taught (Edward de Bono) and that by training the specific skills/questions that they test for in IQ tests you will simply score higher on them.
posted by so_ at 11:55 AM on November 18, 2007

East asians are genetically pre-disposed to longer lives?! WTF?
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 11:59 AM on November 18, 2007

One of the few brilliant things Ayn Rand ever said:
"A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race - and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin."

Everyone who agrees with landis above has to confront the fact that they are disgusting, contemptible racists.
posted by nasreddin at 11:59 AM on November 18, 2007 [12 favorites]

These statistics are worthless, because the differences are cultural.
posted by empath at 12:00 PM on November 18, 2007

delete this fpp.
posted by Fupped Duck at 12:01 PM on November 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

If this is true, how come all my Jewish friends are borderline retarded?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:01 PM on November 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

<seinfeld>I don't think we should be talking about this.</seinfeld>
posted by hjo3 at 12:02 PM on November 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
posted by psyche7 at 12:02 PM on November 18, 2007

"Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system."

That came completely out of left field and is a lousy analogy bordering on a non sequitur.

I believe IQ has very little to do with a person's ability to perform a task better than someone else. In my own (albeit limited) life experience, a person's purported IQ means next to nothing to me when I need them to show up to work on time, or write a review, or manage complex systems - in fact, everyone I've ever met who makes it a point to mention their abnormally high IQ is usually over-compensating for something else.

I know a number of people who have very high IQs who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:03 PM on November 18, 2007 [14 favorites]

Come back to us when you've controlled for education and childhood nutrition. In the mean time, make sure the door hits you on the way out.
posted by louie at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2007 [42 favorites]

All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2007 [14 favorites]

there is quite often cultural biases in questioning.

It would be an interesting exercise to design an IQ test that would advantage African-Americans.
posted by StickyCarpet at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I know it's not politically correct to point this out, but people who equate IQ test results with intelligence tend to be, like Mensa members, self-absorbed social retards. Go ahead, villify me for speaking truth to power.
posted by phooky at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2007 [32 favorites]

Everyone who agrees with landis above has to confront the fact that they are disgusting, contemptible racists.

What's there to agree with? He just stated some facts and asked a question. Talk about overreacting.
posted by hjo3 at 12:05 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

It would be prudent to observe, at the start of whatever discussion might follow, that IQ is a limited metric, much in debate for years. IQ tests measure specific attributes of intelligence, mainly verbal, linguistic, and spacial intelligence. Some have long disputed that this is a limited set of any individual's abilities, gifts, and potential:

In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings - initially a blank slate - could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early 'naive' theories of that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains. (Gardner 1993: xxiii)

From this overview: "The theory [of multiple intelligences] was proposed in the context of debates about the concept of intelligence, and whether methods which claim to measure intelligence (or aspects thereof) are truly scientific. Gardner's theory argues that intelligence, as it is traditionally defined, does not adequately encompass the wide variety of abilities humans display."

My experience in the world confirms this: some of the most fantastically talented composers I know can't spell at all; some of the most gifted teachers I've taught struggled to learn themselves; etc. I'm sure many of us have experiences with people that, on the surface, might seem contradictory (i.e., 'how can she be so smart about science and so stupid about men?' to think of one at random). The simple fact, supported by much evidence gathered empirically, is that human beings demonstrate a wide range of abilities, both innate and learned, that are not at all accounted for by a traditional IQ test. That sort of test is a limited metric, and the sort of controversy stirred by the linked article is out of proportion to what such test results tell us.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:06 PM on November 18, 2007 [10 favorites]

Sunday morning with a great coffee and a bagel at hand is not the time to hissss! and booo!

But maybe I can do better than that. Anyone with minimal knowledge of statistics would say that reporting means is far from informative. One would have to know what the standard deviations (the +/- margins) around those means are. Moreover, socio-economic issues should take into account socio-economic factors that may lead to biases in IQ studies.

Are we going to go for a "good discussion" in this thread? Otherwise, it is a weak article and a weak post.
posted by carmina at 12:06 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

There is no scientific evidence for a racial difference in intelligence. There is no scientific evidence for race, really.

IQ tests are not scientific.

As empath says, these statistics are worthless, because the differences are cultural.

I have an IQ of 180, yet I have done fuck-all with my life except sit around and be a loser, smoke dope and drink myself into alcoholism. So much for high IQ.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:07 PM on November 18, 2007 [28 favorites]

From the article: "I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero."

Hard to blame this difference on culture. The data seems to be contradicting a long held belief: the intellectual equality (on average) between races.

How will you respond when science contradicts your beliefs? Denial? Ad-hominem? ...
posted by jsonic at 12:08 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Is it possible to be Jewish and a white American or do I have to select one?
posted by Postroad at 12:10 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

FOR THE RECORD: I just posted this because I thought it was interesting. The "Was Watson right?" question was taken from the context of the linked article, and in no way reflects my personal views on the subject.
posted by landis at 12:11 PM on November 18, 2007

How will you respond when science contradicts your beliefs? Denial? Ad-hominem?

Well, I'd examine the deeper belief: that linguistic or spatial reasoning abilities are more valuable in human society than, say, mechanical aptitude, artistic insight and skill, or great physical ability. There is an unexamined value system in play here that has nothing to do with race.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:11 PM on November 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

1. He cites the website of noted racist J. Philippe Rushton (whose career is based largely on measuring dick size).

2. Why is it surprising that a test originally designed to filter out undesirable ethnic groups filters out undesirable ethnic groups?

3. IQ is affected by economic status (malnutrition, lead paint, mother's alcohol consumption, etc. etc. etc.)

4. Similar things were said about the Irish a century ago.

5. I advise anyone who believes in this garbage to consult the excellent volume The Bell Curve Wars.

6. The Flynn effect suggests that IQ tests are basically worthless.

7. It is far from being proven that IQ tests reflect anything like a general intelligence quotient ("g").

8. It should be easy to see through Saletan's facile linkage of the evolution debate with grotesque racism.

9. The idea that a researcher can or should approach the question of a racial intelligence difference with "scientific neutrality" is entirely misguided. Science is not an objective enterprise. See the work of Thomas Kuhn, Bruno Latour, and Paul Feyerabend (especially the latter).

10. The concept of "race" is virtually meaningless scientifically.
posted by nasreddin at 12:13 PM on November 18, 2007 [26 favorites]

There is an unexamined value system in play here that has nothing to do with race.

The data in these reports is specifically about intelligence. I think what your comment is referring to is the inevitable mistake that 'classical' racists make: the idea that these average racial differences in intelligence can be used to label one race canonically "superior" and another "inferior".
posted by jsonic at 12:17 PM on November 18, 2007

Yes, of course--that comment was abuot thread; my earlier comment is about intelligence data.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:19 PM on November 18, 2007

The "Was Watson right?" question was taken from the context of the linked article, and in no way reflects my personal views on the subject.

In that case, I apologize--to me, it looked like a rhetorical question.

But I won't apologize for overreacting. Racism is evil and contemptible, and it is precisely Saletan's laid-back complacency that perpetuates it in its most insidious form.
posted by nasreddin at 12:19 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

An IQ test measures your test taking ability of the facts and figures that the IQ test creator believes is important but it's ALL IN CONTEXT. There are racial, societal and even observational bias and an IQ ultimately means nothing ... even Watson proves that being able to accumulate education, facts and make hypothesis does not mean you won't make idiotic statements.

I'll cite an example. I grew up in NYC and when I was about 13, we moved to the suburbs in CA. On a math test, I was faced with an algebra problem involving mowing the lawn. I HAD never mowed a lawn before nor had I actually seen anyone actually mow a lawn. Hard to believe for anyone living in CA but when you're not allowed to watch my TV, how was I suppose to know or CARE how a lawn is mowed? I had a vague concept of how it should be done but I knew as much as mowing lawns as much I knew then (and now) about stringing prayer beads ... yes, it was math but it also involved me trying to read the words portion to frame my answer. Each culture & society has things, normal functions, etc ... that we all take for granted. Does everyone worldwide use green, yellow & red for stoplights? I've even noticed that people knock on doors differently in different cultures! It's subtle, it's small but maybe that cultural or societal bias is 10% or 15% ... Would you score the same if you took that same IQ test but written by a Russian native? A Nigerian native? A Kuwaiti native?
posted by jbelkin at 12:20 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

The whole "cultural differences" thing is such a tired, old excuse.

What do IQ tests have to do with culture? They are designed to test your ability in spatial thinking and pattern recognition.

I think there is possible a genetic difference in IQ, I just can't understand why people think this could never be so. Why is this so shocking? Different races have many physical differences between them.
posted by carfilhiot at 12:20 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

the idea that these average racial differences in intelligence can be used to label one race canonically "superior" and another "inferior".

Give me a fucking break. Yeah, when medieval society was divided into lords, clergy, and peasants, the peasants weren't inferior! They just served a different social function!
posted by nasreddin at 12:21 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: people who have very high IQs who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
posted by ericb at 12:23 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Does anybody else smell that? ...I know I remember that smell from somewhere. Oh yeah, its the smell of an apologist for racism
posted by mano at 12:23 PM on November 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

OK, I'm liberal (and white and male), and I'm uncomfortable with that fact. However, besides IQ, there are a number of other benchmarks that one can pull out that despite our belief in equality, point out other differences between racially-defined groups.

Let's look again at this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …

"Men" aren't all equal. Some are selfless altruists, some are greedy shits. Some beat their wives. Some are Nobel-worthy. But the above statement says all men. The inalienable rights aren't to be shaded by merit or genes or some other factor.

Second, and more important, the majority of our yardsticks, including measurement of IQ are to some extent arbitrary, and flawed, and near pointless taken out of context. Unless of course it is truly meaningful to quantify people's ability to ace IQ tests.

So, regardless of how measurable IQ differences are, I believe that only a racist would seize on this fact to justify a course of action. The truth or otherwise of the IQ findings is insufficient to alter my aim to regard and treat all folks as full equals.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:24 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Your average bushman will score so low on a standard IQ test as to be considered mentally handicapped. Your average American will not survive in a hostile environment such as a jungle or desert for more than a few days, if that. Tell me, who is the smarter?
posted by baphomet at 12:24 PM on November 18, 2007 [15 favorites]

"And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.""

No, no, no. It's the angle of the facial bones that predicts intelligence. Clearly, you aren't up on the latest advances in Physiognomy.

And an anecdote about standardized measures of intelligence:

Every year, my "forum" in high school (think: home room) would take a rafting trip. Two guys, Sam and Greg, argued vociferously that they should be in the front of the raft, with Sam leading, because Sam had gotten a 1600 on his SATs, and Greg had the next-highest score. Due to this objective metric, they were both marked for greatness and the rest of us could only hope to learn by watching them.

All through their pronouncement, they had their helmets on backwards and were holding their paddles wrong.
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 PM on November 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

I have an IQ of 180, yet I have done fuck-all with my life except sit around and be a loser, smoke dope and drink myself into alcoholism.

I dunno. Sounds like yopu made the smart move to me.
posted by jonmc at 12:27 PM on November 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

I know it's not politically correct to point this out, but people who equate IQ test results with intelligence tend to be, like Mensa members, self-absorbed social retards. Go ahead, villify me for speaking truth to power.

I'm not going to vilify you for speaking truth to power.

I'm going to vilify you for pretending to speak truth to power when, by your own definition, you are in fact speaking truth to social retards.
posted by Flunkie at 12:28 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Stephen Jay Gould thoroughly debunked the idea that IQ tests can be used to demonstrate racial inferiority in his excellent book The Mismeasure of Man. They are simply a diagnostic tool that, used with other such tools by experienced practitioners, might reveal something useful about an individual's mental strengths and weaknesses. We still don't know what intelligence is, let alone how to directly measure it.
posted by ubiquity at 12:28 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

No, no, no! It's the differences... of which there are none, that make the sameness... exceptional!

But really, does anyone take IQ tests seriously? I thought it had kind of gone the way of phrenology.

On preview, looks like we've got a little bit of that in the thread as well!
posted by synaesthetichaze at 12:29 PM on November 18, 2007

"No, no, no. It's the angle of the facial bones that predicts intelligence. Clearly, you aren't up on the latest advances in Physiognomy."

The scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked. Your response: an anecdote showing how smart people can sometimes be dumb.'

If you're going to accept science, you can't only accept the science that compliments your beliefs.
posted by jsonic at 12:30 PM on November 18, 2007

What do IQ tests have to do with culture? They are designed to test your ability in spatial thinking and pattern recognition.

Spatial thinking and pattern recognition is, at best, an incomplete definition of "intelligence".
posted by jokeefe at 12:31 PM on November 18, 2007

The scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked.

Really? Woez. I have a notably small head, and yet I am smart. Or, well, you know, smarter than some.
posted by jokeefe at 12:32 PM on November 18, 2007

Hey, I can read this:

http://www.sankei-kansai.com/

Landis, can you read it? If you can't, does that make Watson right?
posted by KokuRyu at 12:32 PM on November 18, 2007

SCIENCE!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:34 PM on November 18, 2007

Actually, this leads me to a side issue. The world is in a sorry state, war, famine, hatred. And who runs the world governments and businesses? Smart people. Who has all the money? Smart people. Who runs our universities, our cultural institiutions? Smart people, with degrees and high IQ's, the lot of them. And look at the world.

Let's kill all the smart people.
posted by jonmc at 12:34 PM on November 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

No.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

jsonic, it isn't that people aren't accepting SCIENCE, it's that they're offend by the writer's not-so-subtly implied racism. It's almost as though you can hear Saletan over your shoulder, arms waving, shouting, "See? See?! I told you black people are dumb!"
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:35 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

"The scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked."

Old scientific conclusions based on old data link those ideas, but recent studies have shown that brain size has little to do with IQ. I'd post a link to cites, but honestly I really can't be bothered arguing against such preposterous nonsense. It is, as synaesthetichaze notes, equivalent to phrenology. Pernicious unscientific nonsense.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:36 PM on November 18, 2007

Sorry. Up against the wall, sir. As soon as I can figure out how to execute you with this waterpistol, it's curtains.
posted by jonmc at 12:36 PM on November 18, 2007

SCIENCE!
posted by disclaimer at 12:37 PM on November 18, 2007

"Really? Woez. I have a notably small head, and yet I am smart. Or, well, you know, smarter than some."

Statistics Refresher: Averages say nothing about any specific Individual.
posted by jsonic at 12:37 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

And who runs the world governments and businesses? Smart people. Who has all the money? Smart people.

Have you ever personally known elected officials, large business owners, or--most especially--rich people? Many adjectives come to mind to describe my experiences with such folks, but 'smart' is not on that list.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:37 PM on November 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

"Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research.

Knee-jerk responses, maybe. But there's wisdom behind them. The dream of a society where every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law is still more compelling than the results of any study. Most people don't want to give up that dream just because of some scientific asshat and his flimsy correlations.
posted by Laugh_track at 12:37 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Actually, I remember quiet clearly the days when women's inferior intelligence was "proven" by the fact that, on average, women's brains are small than men's.

Brain size is bogus. Differences between individuals are always greater than differences between groups. Your average sub-Saharan African test at 70 on an IQ test? Get back to me when they have universal basic education, a healthy diet, and stable housing. I'm embarassed for Slate that they even considered publishing this.
posted by jokeefe at 12:39 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

The article linked is simply another attempt to support the effort to differentiate humans into species, categories that help to justify inhuman practices, both economic and political.

From an Anthropological and Biological point of view there is a miniscule genetic difference between so-called races, and IQ testing itself is so subjective (and culturally biased) as to be laughable as a standard of measure for human intelligence, especially in the 21st century.

There is no "other" to exploit in our modern world. It's time put away Victorian ideas and accept scientific reality - races and genotypical differences do not really exist, there are only phenotypical differences.

Watson is simply a fool with an agenda.
posted by Athabasca at 12:40 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

"The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ."

heres a controlled study: "Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families"
posted by mano at 12:40 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Landis, can you read it? If you can't, does that make Watson right?

AS I SAID, the question was taken from the context of the article, and doesn't reflect my personal views.
posted by landis at 12:41 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

The concept of "race" is virtually meaningless scientifically.

I've often heard this, but I'm not really sure what it's supposed to actually mean.

Let's take 100 random people, serving as "race judges". Show them pictures of other random people, and ask them each (independently and individually) to assign one of "African", "European", or "Asian" to each of the pictures.

For those pictures that are nearly unanimously labelled "Asian", get the pictured people together to procreate.

Several years later, take pictures of all of the resulting children.

Show those pictures to 100 random people - doesn't even have to be the same 100 random people from the first time.

Does anyone doubt that those babies wouldn't, generally, be assigned "Asian"?

If the concept of "race" were "virtually meaningless scientifically", I would think that the above scientific test would (if done) easily falsify it. Does anyone think that the above scientific test actually would falsify it?

To be clear, I'm not saying that race is an absolute, that it is discrete rather than a continuum, or that there are not many people who would buck the trend of the above test, and I am most certainly not saying that we should let it influence us in how we interact with people.

But none of those things makes the concept "virtually meaningless scientifically".
posted by Flunkie at 12:41 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

This post is great, because it highlights two great American obsessions that should have been scrapped in the last century:

1) race [an artificial construct that doesn't exist]
2) standardized testing

Oh, yeah, and you guys should also impeach George Bush.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:42 PM on November 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

The scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked.

No, William Saletan says that the scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked.

He hasn't given us a citation, other than the Rushton piece (which doesn't open on my computer).

Who is Rushton? Head of the Pioneer Fund, for one thing.

See also: Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank," Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (Feb. 2001).
posted by nasreddin at 12:42 PM on November 18, 2007

Have you ever personally known elected officials, large business owners, or--most especially--rich people? Many adjectives come to mind to describe my experiences with such folks, but 'smart' is not on that list.

People don't gain money and power by being stupid. I didn't say they weren't evil.
posted by jonmc at 12:42 PM on November 18, 2007

I've never understood how IQ (or any other measure of intelligence) could not be subjective.

Whatever behavior or ability we see as desirable, we designate as an element of intelligence. But how do we decide what is and isn't desirable? By its very nature, the question has to be subjective. There just can't be an objective answer.
posted by Clay201 at 12:43 PM on November 18, 2007

An IQ test measures your test taking ability of the facts and figures that the IQ test creator believes is important...

Right. When Lewis Terman, the progenitor of IQ testing in America, was once asked to define intelligence, he replied "intelligence is the sum of the properties of the human brain measured by my test." I think it's hard to justify sweeping generalizations about large populations based on that definition.
posted by ubiquity at 12:44 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Flunkie, I am "white" and my wife is "Asian". But if anyone ever called our son "mixed-race" I would punch them in the nose.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:44 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Clearly, you aren't up on the latest advances in Physiognomy.

And don't forget Phrenology (as per synaesthetichaze's mention above).
posted by ericb at 12:44 PM on November 18, 2007

the above scientific test

You're testing What Joe Average Thinks About Race, not the scientific concept of race. It's like proving the inferiority of blacks via a panel composed of a randomly-selected sample of Americans circa 1750.
posted by nasreddin at 12:44 PM on November 18, 2007

Whatever behavior or ability we see as desirable, we designate as an element of intelligence.

That's simply not true. IQ tests don't include, for example, questions about how often you should brush your teeth, nor do they include punt, pass, and kick tests.
posted by Flunkie at 12:45 PM on November 18, 2007

jsonic:

The scientific data shows that on average brain size and IQ are linked. Your response: an anecdote showing how smart people can sometimes be dumb.'

If you're going to accept science, you can't only accept the science that compliments your beliefs.

i just posted a link to a study that contradicts your belief about "science". if you are going to invoke "the scientific data" do us all a favor and post a link to it so we can look at it ourselves.
posted by mano at 12:45 PM on November 18, 2007

Flunkie, I am "white" and my wife is "Asian". But if anyone ever called our son "mixed-race" I would punch them in the nose.

Good for you. But that really has nothing to do with what I said.

Do you think that the proposed test is not "scientific"?

Do you think that, if "race" were "virtually meaningless scientifically", that the proposed test would not easily falsify it?

Do you think that the proposed test would falsify it?
posted by Flunkie at 12:47 PM on November 18, 2007

Cosma Shalizi has a long, somewhat technical, but very interesting post explaining how psychologists calculate g (general intelligence) and the problems with the statistical technique (called factor analysis) they use.
posted by Jasper Friendly Bear at 12:49 PM on November 18, 2007

Prepend a "This article implies:" to my comment. The point of my comment was to say that contradictory anecdotes aren't useful arguments about the validity of scientific data.
posted by jsonic at 12:49 PM on November 18, 2007

Stephen Colbert (2/8/2007):

"So tonight, I would like to announce, categorically, and for the last time, that, and I am not being coy, I am not running for president. I know these lumps are trying to tell me something. Phrenology is study of the lumps on your head. It’d be another good campaign slogan."^*

posted by ericb at 12:49 PM on November 18, 2007

Using the fallacy of division to infer that a member of a subgroup may not be intelligent is the legacy of IQ testing. It basically lets dumber members of the higher groupings get away with bluffing their intelligence and turning it into a racial proposition. And where's median and mode anyway?

MRI scans of brain size for each sex is probably a "better" measure of intelligence, less prone to abuse. That way a pinhead from a high group can't bluff his way through. It also doesn't come with cultural baggage and the bias inherent in the test language, and it includes the potential intelligence we avoid measuring. MRI brain size is also standardized accross cultures.
posted by Brian B. at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2007

You're testing What Joe Average Thinks About Race, not the scientific concept of race.

What "scientific concept of race"?

The test shows (or, that is, I strongly suspect would show) that there is something that can be scientifically measured in what people refer to as "race". That's all. But that's enough to show that it is not "virtually meaningless scientifically".

If you want to argue that that is not important, or that we shouldn't allow it to affect our behavior, I would agree with you.

But "virtually meaningless scientifically" seems like just trying to give an air of authority.
posted by Flunkie at 12:51 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

People don't gain money and power by being stupid.

Well, we're way off-topic, but I did want to say that, in my experience, stupidity is precisely why some people gain money and power.
posted by LooseFilter at 12:51 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

People don't gain money and power by being stupid.


If stupid people give them money and power, why would they need to be intelligent?
posted by Brian B. at 12:52 PM on November 18, 2007

Good for you. But that really has nothing to do with what I said.

Do you think that the proposed test is not "scientific"?

Do you think that, if "race" were "virtually meaningless scientifically", that the proposed test would not easily falsify it?

Do you think that the proposed test would falsify it?

1. See my criticism above.
2. A thought experiment is by definition non-scientific.
3. Falsificationism is a refuted methodological theory. (See Feyerabend, Against Method).
4. You haven't defined what "scientific" means, and you have a very Vanity Fair definition of science.
5. I take "scientifically valid" to mean "there are more genetic differences on average between races than there are within them."
6. The proposed experiment does not test that hypothesis at all.
7. The hypothesis in #5 has been refuted by anthropological studies.
posted by nasreddin at 12:53 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

It would be interesting to see how much of the difference is in verbal sections, seeing as Latinos and African Americans often speak variants of English. I'd like to see the groups split among divisions other than race, to see what factors in early childhood correlate with which parts of intelligence.
posted by fermezporte at 12:53 PM on November 18, 2007

Just as an anecdotal example, since I was a kid, I've been in the 99th percentile of every standardized test I've ever taken. My younger sister scored average to slightly above average on every test she's taken. Yet now that we both in the real world, by pretty much every metric which we define success, she's far more successful than me, she has a college degree, while I dropped out, she has a higher paying, higher status job than me, she has a family and owns a home, and I rent and live with room mates.

I mean, sure, I own the shit out of her and her husband at Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit, but that's kinda not what IQ is supposed to mean, is it?

And that's between two kids raised in the same household raised by the same parents -- imagine the differences between middle class suburban children of priviledge and kids growing up in the city with no prospects.

IQ doesn't mean anything.
posted by empath at 12:54 PM on November 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

I really shouldn't be, but I'm always astounded by how much baggage people bring whenever this topic comes up. And it takes weeks of talking for everyone to sort through the baggage and vocabulary (and the vitriol) before they realize they're mostly in agreement: There are some facts. They are hard to interpret. Making the wrong conclusions would seriously erode our society's sense of fairness. Lets just sit this out.
posted by thandal at 12:55 PM on November 18, 2007 [7 favorites]

Do you think that the proposed test is not "scientific"?

Yes, I think the test is unscientific because there is no such thing as race. Race is a social construct. It is a continuum. Obviously, different folks have different genetic characteristics, such as skin colour.

It's a lot easier to think in terms of culture.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:56 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Let's take 100 random people, serving as "race judges". Show them pictures of other random people, and ask them each (independently and individually) to assign one of "big nosed", "medium nosed", or "small nosed" to each of the pictures.

For those pictures that are nearly unanimously labelled "big nosed", get the pictured people together to procreate. Does anyone doubt that their babies wouldn't, generally, be assigned "big nosed"?

So that means there is a big-nosed race? Sorry, I mean homo sapiens maxiproboscisia.

All your test demonstrates is the inheritance of physical characteristics. It doesn't demonstrate the scientific validity of cordoning off groups of humans with similar characteristics into "races" (and then watching the fun when the Sneetches, sorry, I mean the races try to decide which one is superior).
posted by ubiquity at 12:56 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider are Jewish. Can a person have a high IQ score and be borderline retarded?
posted by stavrogin at 12:56 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

So you take a scientifically fuzzy category (race), and then use it to explain a scientifically fuzzy idea (intelligence). Yeah, there's bound to be really good results coming out of this. Once again from the top:
1.)so-called racial traits do not genetically co-vary.

2.)There is more genetic diversity amongst Africans than amongst all other populations put together.

3.)The genes responsible for phenotype make up approx. 0.01% of your total genes.

4.)The categories of race are fluid and have changed dramatically throughout history.

5.)There is greater genetic diversity between chimps from opposite ends of the jungle than there is between all humans.

6.)Anatomically modern humans are very recent (approx. 130,000ya). Humans don't spread to other parts of the world til approx. 50,000ya. This is not enough time for speciation or even sub-speciation.

This whole idea of being able to categorize people into races is absurd. Yeah there are genetic differences between populations (there are also genetic differences between siblings--go figure), however these are regional population and there categories do not correspond to what we have called race.

IQ tests do not measure intelligence! Once again, IQ tests do not measure intelligence! This is impossible as we do not even have a consistent definition of what intelligence is, and in fact it is becoming more and more apparent there there are several different types of "intelligence". IQ tests were not designed to measure intelligence. They were designed to diagnose people with learning disabilities. And for the poster quoting the shit about head size, give me a fucking break. Phrenology went out of vogue about 100 years ago.

So many people want to believe that their genes make them better than others. So many people want a scientific reason to look down on others. This shit just makes me weep for humanity.
posted by anansi at 12:57 PM on November 18, 2007 [18 favorites]

It also apparently doesn't mean that I know how to use punctuation. Sorry, I'm a bit hung over and I can't deal with commas right now.
posted by empath at 12:57 PM on November 18, 2007

this FPP is so pathetic, it should be deleted.

i suppose the comment stream might be helpful for mefites of inferior intelligence (undoubtedly due to smaller brain size or their racial identification!!) that might inclined to believe it.

but if we leave this shit up you know it will lead to some jerkoff posting a FPP like "Was David Duke Right?" "Did the holocaust happen?"

seriously.
posted by mano at 12:58 PM on November 18, 2007

Flunkie's test merely proves that race as a social construct exists, which no one would disagree with.
posted by empath at 12:59 PM on November 18, 2007

The American Anthropological Association on race.
posted by gudrun at 12:59 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

nuke thread from space / only way to be sure
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:00 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

2. A thought experiment is by definition non-scientific.

Fine, I concur to that. You didn't answer whether you doubted it or not.

3. Falsificationism is a refuted methodological theory. (See Feyerabend, Against Method).

Sorry, I'm not going to "see" your reference during this casual conversation. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here, though; I believe that falsification is at the very heart of science.

If tests falsify the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not a theory.

You haven't defined what "scientific" means, and you have a very Vanity Fair definition of science.

Please stop trying to draw broad conclusions about me based upon ten sentences that you've seen me write. "Scientific" as in "the scientific method".

5. I take "scientifically valid" to mean "there are more genetic differences on average between races than there are within them."

By this definition, I strongly suspect that the concepts of "tall" or "prone to heart disease" are not "scientifically valid".

6. The proposed experiment does not test that hypothesis at all.

So what? It tests whether something that people mean by "race" can be measured.

7. The hypothesis in #5 has been refuted by anthropological studies.

Good. I don't doubt it, and I'm glad to hear it.
posted by Flunkie at 1:00 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

So that means there is a big-nosed race?

No, it would mean that the concept of big-nosedness as an inheritable thing that people can detect is scientifically meaningful.

All your test demonstrates is the inheritance of physical characteristics.

Why do you think that I disagree with this?

It doesn't demonstrate the scientific validity of cordoning off groups of humans with similar characteristics into "races"

Why do you think I think it does?

Was it the part where I said "I am most certainly not saying that we should let it influence us in how we interact with people"?

Is that the part that made you think I think we should cordon off groups off humans?
posted by Flunkie at 1:03 PM on November 18, 2007

As someone who has, in the past, been quite good at IQ tests (though I don't actually think they prove anything other than that one is quite good at IQ tests), an important factor in getting the answers right is being motivated to take the test seriously.

I would suggest that the groups who are reported to score badly on the tests would be disinclined to do so, possibly considering the tests to be More Jive Ass Bullshit from Those Honky Motherfuckers (or whatever equivalent terminology would be employed outside a blaxploitation flick).

A consideration I would agree with most wholeheartedly.

Is there a simple, consistent and generally-agreed-upon definition of the word "intelligence", anyway?
posted by Grangousier at 1:03 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry, I'm not going to "see" your reference during this casual conversation. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at here, though; I believe that falsification is at the very heart of science.

If tests falsify the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not a theory.

I'd recommend actually seeing that reference, then, at some point. Feyerabend gives decisive historical and contemporary evidence that it just isn't so, and if it were science would be impossible.

By this definition, I strongly suspect that the concepts of "tall" or "prone to heart disease" are not "scientifically valid".

What?

It tests whether something that people mean by "race" can be measured.

If I ran a study on UFO sightings, tested whether people believed they saw UFOs during recorded sighting events, and therefore concluded that UFOs exist, I would not be a good scientist. I don't care about what Joe Average means by "race." If you're going to link race and intelligence, you have to define race in terms of measurable phenotypic and genotypic characteristics, and then prove that it exists. Which your test does not even begin to do.
posted by nasreddin at 1:06 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

...some jerkoff posting a FPP like "Was David Duke Right?" "Did the holocaust happen?"

Right again, Mike!
posted by ubiquity at 1:06 PM on November 18, 2007

Is there a simple, consistent and generally-agreed-upon definition of the word "intelligence", anyway?

In a word, no.
posted by ubiquity at 1:07 PM on November 18, 2007

Well, we're way off-topic, but I did want to say that, in my experience, stupidity is precisely why some people gain money and power

Case in point.
posted by ericb at 1:08 PM on November 18, 2007

I said:
Whatever behavior or ability we see as desirable, we designate as an element of intelligence.

Flunkie said:

That's simply not true. IQ tests don't include, for example, questions about how often you should brush your teeth, nor do they include punt, pass, and kick tests.

Alright, I'll concede the semantics. Not every desirable trait is included in "intelligence." But every trait that's included in intelligence is desirable. So... again, I ask: how do you determine what's desirable without bringing a whole lot of subjectivity into the equation?
posted by Clay201 at 1:08 PM on November 18, 2007

Why do you think that I disagree with this?


Well, shit dude, maybe you had better learn to write a little better so you can get your point across.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:09 PM on November 18, 2007

The emergence of such studies show that there are some allegedly intelligent persons operating in the field of science who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground.
Race does not exist in any concrete reality but does exist as a social/cultural divider. If you divide your test results by the spurious concept of race, in the world as it obtains you in fact are dividing them by class, and surprise, surprise, the privileged score better in measures of their own devising.
posted by Abiezer at 1:09 PM on November 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

If you're going to link race and intelligence

Which I didn't, don't, and which I've explicitly tried to say many times that I don't.

Sheesh. I give up, you win.
posted by Flunkie at 1:10 PM on November 18, 2007

Well, shit dude, maybe you had better learn to write a little better so you can get your point across.

Exactly what in anything that I said led you to believe that I disagree with the idea that all my proposed test would show is that physical characteristics are inheritable?
posted by Flunkie at 1:11 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm really sorry that I posted this. It has led many to think that I agree with the premise of the linked article (a notion I have tried to debunk twice in thread), and has obviously pissed a lot of folks off. I'm sorry to all, and have notified the mods that I have no problem w/ the post's deletion.

Sorry again.
posted by landis at 1:13 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Which I didn't, don't, and which I've explicitly tried to say many times that I don't.


OK.

But the point still stands. If you want to show the existence of race, you have to define race properly. Which you don't do, and which might explain the confusion you expressed in your first comment.
posted by nasreddin at 1:14 PM on November 18, 2007

Intelligence is a relative thing. I know fuck all about IQ tests, but I know that I went to college in engineering and when I wandered down into some fishing villages in the South American hinterlands I was as good as dead if it weren't for those uneducated fisherman.
posted by iamck at 1:14 PM on November 18, 2007

Delete this thread and Flunkie with it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:14 PM on November 18, 2007

those of you interested understanding the theoretical weaknesses in the public's understanding of science that are exploited by racist "scientists" with an agenda and cheerleader media accomplices should really read Lykken on the topic of statistical significance. Try to find the chapter he wrote called "What’s Wrong with Psychology Anyway?" (i couldnt find it online).

italics are from some online notes:
basically the point is that "The alternative view is that the NULL HYPOTHESIS IS NEVER STRICTLY TRUE, especially in areas of soft psychology".

The moral of the story is that the finding of statistical significance is perhaps the least important attribute of a good experiment: it is never a sufficient condition for concluding that a theory has been corroborated, that a useful empirical fact has been established with reasonable confidence-or that an experimental report ought to be published.”
posted by mano at 1:17 PM on November 18, 2007

If you want to show the existence of race, you have to define race properly.

I didn't explicitly define it there, of course, but I thought that it should have been clear from my original post that I was defining "race" as in "the general consensus of whether a person is 'white' or 'black' or whatever".

If there is a complaint along these lines here, you should address it to the person I was responding to, who did not explicitly define what he meant by "race" when he said that the concept was "virtually meaningless scientifically".
posted by Flunkie at 1:17 PM on November 18, 2007

Delete this thread and Flunkie with it.

What offensive thing did I say? Seriously?
posted by Flunkie at 1:18 PM on November 18, 2007

Sorry again.

You can say sorry all you want, but people are going to remember this post for a long, long time...probably until about 8PM tonight.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:20 PM on November 18, 2007

nuke thread from space / only way to be sure

But, to do so, wouldn't you have to be a rocket scientist with an incredibly high IQ?

Err, wait. Couldn't George 'Dumbya' Bush just press one of those bright, shiny red buttons on his desk in the Oval Office?
posted by ericb at 1:21 PM on November 18, 2007

I thought that it should have been clear from my original post that I was defining "race" as in "the general consensus of whether a person is 'white' or 'black' or whatever".

You just don't get it, do you? "General consensus" doesn't prove jack squat, and it's not an adequate definition--it's far too vague, and it ends up in a circular argument!
posted by nasreddin at 1:22 PM on November 18, 2007

Well, we're way off-topic, but I did want to say that, in my experience, stupidity is precisely why some people gain money and power.

GW Bush is not a good example. he didn't 'gain' money & power, he was born with it.
posted by jonmc at 1:23 PM on November 18, 2007

I have to add, speaking as a white genius, this is a pile of shite.
posted by Abiezer at 1:24 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

er, here it is. trust me. read it if you can get access, youll be glad you did.

Statistical significance in psychological research.
Lykken, D T Psychological bulletin 1968 vol:70 iss:3 pg:151 -9
posted by mano at 1:25 PM on November 18, 2007

What offensive thing did I say? Seriously?

Well, race is meaningless scientifically. In debating that point you come off as advocating the idea that race is a measurable, scientific category and as such you are lending validity to the racial correlations with intelligence. Perhaps this was not your intention, but you seem to be repeatedly and vociferously arguing the point that race is "real".
posted by anansi at 1:26 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

You just don't get it, do you? "General consensus" doesn't prove jack squat

Excuse me, but you seem to "not just get" that I'm not trying to "prove" anything except that one poster's claim that "the concept of race is virtually scientifically meaningless" doesn't seem entirely accurate to me.

How many times do I have to say things such as that I don't think this proves that people of different races are, on average, smarter or stupider than each other?

Or that I don't even think in the first place that people of different races are, on average, smarter or stupider than each other?

Or that I think we shouldn't let race affect how we interact with each other?
posted by Flunkie at 1:26 PM on November 18, 2007

Virgin post. Please be kind.

My first thought when I heard Mr. Watson's comments were "So what?". The bias I see isn't racial but intellectual. So what if whites are smarter? When did intelligence become the most aspired to human trait? What if tomorrow a genetic study is reported that shows of all of the "races", Asians are the least capable of experiencing joy or pain? Or that Africans, genetically are more capable of perceiving non-physical truths than whites? What then? Sounds silly, I guess, but I want to make two pts.

1. This argument, and all those who vociferously decry Mr. Watson, assume, as he appears to, that intelligence is a higher trait.

2. And this is my main pt, genetic truths are not going to stop coming. Mr. Watson could be a dead wrong blathering old genius, but that doesn't mean that genetic studies aren't going to absolutely destroy some of the false assumptions that most of you rest you self-righteousness on. Alot of these posts, at first reading, sound an awful lot like people defending a religion.
posted by iknowimaloser at 1:27 PM on November 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Well, race is meaningless scientifically. In debating that point you come off as advocating the idea that race is a measurable, scientific category

Do you think that that experiment would not measure it?

Would you think the same thing if we did the same experiment with "short" or "tall" rather than "European", "African", or "Asian"?

and as such you are lending validity to the racial correlations with intelligence.

No I'm not.
posted by Flunkie at 1:29 PM on November 18, 2007

Why are people so sure that white, black, and Asian people have the same average intelligence? This is not at all obvious.

And before you tell me that you don't know what black, white, and Asian people, I know you do, so don't be coy.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:30 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Excuse me, but you seem to "not just get" that I'm not trying to "prove" anything except that one poster's claim that "the concept of race is virtually scientifically meaningless" doesn't seem entirely accurate to me.

I don't care if you think racial intelligence differences exist. You claimed "Race exists and it is scientifically meaningful." You defined race as "General consensus." That does not constitute adequate proof, because in order to test for the existence and significance of something you need criteria independent from the assumptions you are trying to test. What you are doing is constructing an ad hoc hypothesis.


2. And this is my main pt, genetic truths are not going to stop coming. Mr. Watson could be a dead wrong blathering old genius, but that doesn't mean that genetic studies aren't going to absolutely destroy some of the false assumptions that most of you rest you self-righteousness on. Alot of these posts, at first reading, sound an awful lot like people defending a religion.

Please go back to YouTube.
posted by nasreddin at 1:34 PM on November 18, 2007

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that non-mixing populations could develop different traits over 50,000 years. It seems pretty straightforward that certain cognitive abilities or things that would be tested by current IQ tests (flawed as they are) would be promoted or suppressed due to environmental differences. I don't see a problem with that.

The problem, really, is that we don't have a universal definition of intelligence. However, I would trust an international team of cognitive psychologists specializing in learning and memory to put together a pretty good test if they put their minds to it. After that, they could compare demographic information and see what correlates well. Most likely it will be economic status - as someone said before, malnutrition and lack of basic education should have a much bigger effect on the test scores than "race." But considering the nature of the discussion - this is an argument about race, not politics - that's no reason to discard race entirely as an effect.

The question is not whether race is the primary determinant of intelligence (however measured). The question is whether it is possible that race has an effect on intelligence. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't. I don't think it would have a very significant effect; certainly the kid's environment is a much more important factor, but a smart man just lost his job because he suggested it might have even a small effect. That's alarming, and the refusal to even consider the idea is what I thought the article addressed.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:34 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't remember who it was but some good creativity/education researcher that separated three dispositions that you need to actually do serious advances:

1) The disposition for raising questions
2) The disposition for holding your interest in them and elaborating those questions
3) The disposition for solving given problems

IQ measures that third one, but if you don't carry the machinery within (1 & 2) that feeds your problem solving skills, you easily end up as just another internet smartypants. All three can be learned, but focusing on IQ has left 1 and 2 lacking. For me, the world of open source development is a good example. People are very happy to do the same programs again and again, as long as they can add little tricks of their own that provide answers to problems already recognized by others.

This also explains a bit of the allure of Metafilter. Posts provide the necessary framing and we can concentrate on being clever inside these limits. Well, there is a bit of 1 and 2 here, when posts branch into separate discussions but it easily locks into 3, giving your 2 cents.
posted by Free word order! at 1:36 PM on November 18, 2007

Hey Flunkie, we can't scientifically define what is and is not pornography. From this, we can safely say that pornography does not exist. Why don't you understand this?
posted by jsonic at 1:37 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Fantastic. My first post gets an ad hominem attack. You people are too easy. Thanks nasreddin. I'm gonna go tell my friends I got pwned by a Mefite. So glad I gave my 5 bucks for your pithy commentary. Hilarious.
posted by iknowimaloser at 1:38 PM on November 18, 2007

I don't care if you think racial intelligence differences exist. You claimed "Race exists and it is scientifically meaningful." You defined race as "General consensus." That does not constitute adequate proof, because in order to test for the existence and significance of something you need criteria independent from the assumptions you are trying to test. What you are doing is constructing an ad hoc hypothesis.

The fact that the general consensus is (I strongly believe) inheritable, in a scientifically measurable way, is what I am pointing out.

That's not ad hoc.

I give up. You all win, I'm a fucking white supremacist. Goodbye.
posted by Flunkie at 1:38 PM on November 18, 2007

And before you tell me that you don't know what black, white, and Asian people, I know you do, so don't be coy.

Oh, the invincible power of prejudice.
posted by nasreddin at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2007

Flunkie When people say "race isn't a scientifically valid concept" what they mean is not "duh, people all look the same and can't be divided into groups cuz we're so PC". They mean "genetic variation within a given 'race' is equal to or greater than genetic variation outside a given 'race', which makes the concept irrelivant from a genetics standpoint".

From a genetic standpoint there ain't no such thing as "race", and that's what they mean when they say "scientifically invalid".

Which is why its not merely silly, but illustrative of an underlying racism, when people attempt to link intelligence with phenotype. Diet, early education, etc are all demonstorably more important than skin color.

Interesting factoid on the subject: Way back in the dark days when anthropology was basically "pseudo-scientific racism", which it has happily long since stopped being, a group of pseudo-scientists measured head shape among Italian immegrants to New York city. They found that there was a measurable, and actually rather noticable, difference in the shape of the immegrant's skulls and the shape of white New Yorker's skulls. At the time there was a great deal of racist rejection of Italians, and this study was used widely to justify that. Later, to drive home just how horribly genetically inferior the lowly Italian race was they measured the skulls of the children of those immegrants, and were quite upset with the results.

Why? Because it turns out that skull shape is tightly tied to diet, and the children of the immegrants had been eating standard New York city diets and had skulls identical to those of white New Yorkers. That study they didn't shout from the rooftops, naturally.
posted by sotonohito at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2007 [8 favorites]

FYI on this issue, IQ tests, at least the few official ones that matter (e.g., the WAIS (for adults)/WISC (for children) and Stanford Binet (not in wide use) are created so that the average score of the normative population against which all scores are measured is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. If you buy the idea that intelligence is normally distributed within a population (a foundational idea in stats even though it isn't quite true), then 68% of all folks will have an IQ that is plus or minus 1 standard deviation (e.g., between 85 and 115. 95% of the population will fall within 2 SDs and about 99% fall within 3 (e.g., 55-145. Whom ever was saying they had an IQ score of 180 is probably deluded, as this is a terribly rare statistical event, being some 5.33 standard deviations above the mean.

These tests are really collections of subtests, and there are verbal and performance/spatial test groupings. The verbal parts of the test are culturally influenced; the spatial parts less so but still there is a cultural influence at work. Tests like Raven's progressive matrices (which are all geometric in nature are supposed to be culture-free, but really the idea of a culture free test is a relative thing).

Beyond raw cultural preparation for the concepts tested in the IQ tests, there are other factors to consider also, such as whether individual cultural groups within the "racial" groups emphasize the value of education or not.

Final thought for now -

The issue is not really whether different groups score differently on IQ tests. The issue is whether the differences between groups are statistically significant. in otherwords, you have to know whether the chances are better that measured differences between groups occured by chance, or whether they represent real differences in the average score being measured. ANOVA style tests can be conducted to determine this if the case if standard deviations for each group being compared are known. They weren't reported here to my knowledge.
posted by sirvesa at 1:39 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

This argument, and all those who vociferously decry Mr. Watson, assume, as he appears to, that intelligence is a higher trait.

but there's another assumption that watson and the author of this article seem to be making - that this information, if true, actually is useful for us to know

please explain why that would be - what value do i receive from the "knowledge" that black people have on average, lower IQs than whites?

why is this useful to know?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:41 PM on November 18, 2007

Flunkie, it's like arguing with a deist or feminist. You can't win.
We must be masochists to even try to add depth to what is essentially a pissing contest determining who can be more moral.
posted by iknowimaloser at 1:41 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: More Jive Ass Bullshit From Those Honky Motherfuckers
posted by jason's_planet at 1:43 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

"Latino-americans" as a race? Yeah, that's never been problematic.

I'm gonna write a very very scientific test that measures IQ for mandyman-americans and see how you all measure up to it.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:43 PM on November 18, 2007

True pyramid, but that is the assumption behind all knowledge, no? It's left for the end user to determine each truths worth.
posted by iknowimaloser at 1:45 PM on November 18, 2007

There is no scientific evidence for race, really.

From an Anthropological and Biological point of view there is a miniscule genetic difference between so-called races

The concept of "race" is virtually meaningless scientifically.

i've heard this line a lot and never really understood it. how is it that race is scientifically meaningless?

there are a lot of physical characteristics common to what we normally identify as races. one group has skin with a lot of melanin and tightly curled hair. another has epicanthic folds and lactose intolerance. yet another exhibits a wide variety of eye and hair colors. these are examples of traits that, while obviously not universal to a certain group, are clearly inheritable and identify a certain segment of the genetic population.

these are differences which are obvious to a child - there are black people, white people, and so on. why, when we have grown into adulthood, has our ability to discern them gone away?

basically, if you can measure these characteristics, which clearly one can, what makes it "unscientific"?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:45 PM on November 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

see what happens, editors? see?

when moronic douchebags write articles they set the terms of the debate. and then a bunch of people get to talking about race and the big debate becomes "does it exist" and "does it not exist"

OF COURSE "RACE" FUCKING EXISTS.

it exists as an idea. it is a scoial construct. it is HUGE. it has a HUGE impact.

what it is not, at least not significantly, is it is NOT about genetics. genetic race differences are the exception for humans. they are minor. they are tiny. they are inconsistent. they are especially unimportant to how people end up living their lives when considered RELATIVE to the social impacts the construct or idea has on our behaviour.

so yes, race exists. and so when you find race differences in human behavior, look for social and cultural reasons why. dont look for genetic reasons why. unless you are a racist douchebag with an agenda.
posted by mano at 1:46 PM on November 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

That's alarming, and the refusal to even consider the idea is what I thought the article addressed.

I thought so too; which is why I had the "bright" idea to make this post.
posted by landis at 1:49 PM on November 18, 2007

They mean "genetic variation within a given 'race' is equal to or greater than genetic variation outside a given 'race', which makes the concept irrelivant from a genetics standpoint".

I question this statement, but possibly because I may not understand you completely. Isn't it possible that the differences that make up the variation outside a racial group or portion of a continuum are different from the difference which make up the variation within that group?

If there is more variation within a group than between groups, that doesn't render the differences between groups negligible. But I may have misunderstood you.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:49 PM on November 18, 2007

So, future reference, if I'm an asshole who wants to start a bullshit thread and have it get a lot of comments before it gets deleted, it's a good chance none of the mods are online around 4:00 PM EST on a Sunday?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 1:51 PM on November 18, 2007

Before this post gets deleted, I just want to thank nasreddin for saying everything I would have said.

Also, IQ tests measure nothing but the ability to do well on IQ tests. Anyone who thinks they measure "intelligence" is an idiot.
posted by languagehat at 1:51 PM on November 18, 2007

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that non-mixing populations could develop different traits over 50,000 years.

There is no such thing as a 'non-mixing population', that's why, especially not over 50,000 years.

Race does not exist; or, if it does, it is a continuum.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:52 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh, the invincible power of prejudice.

Really? Here's a thought experiment.

You have been given three slips of paper. One says "black," one says "white," and one says "Asian."

You are presented with the following three photographs:

1.
2.
3.

If you match the slips with the pictures, you get $10,000. How do you feel about your chances? I suppose you think you're probably not going to get the money, huh? I mean, you only have a one in six chance.

There's just no way to tell which picture is of a person of which race, because race is meaningless!
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:52 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

True pyramid, but that is the assumption behind all knowledge, no? It's left for the end user to determine each truths worth.

that's just relativism and not any kind of real answer

doesn't anyone want to answer the question? or is the answer something people don't want to admit? that the only reason such information would be useful is that racists would use it to justify their racism

if you can think of another use for it, i'm listening
posted by pyramid termite at 1:52 PM on November 18, 2007

.
posted by mano at 1:52 PM on November 18, 2007

Metafilter: I won't apologize for overreacting
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:54 PM on November 18, 2007

Don't worry about it, landis, you just happened to kick over a can of hot glue. It's not your fault Chicago's burning down.

it exists as an idea. it is a scoial construct. it is HUGE. it has a HUGE impact.

I take exception to this statement - I think it is only partially a social construct. There are meaningful differences between the races, as mentioned by sergeant sandwich. Certainly there is a social component, but the proportion it makes up is debatable. Some think it's 10%, some think it's 90%. Only one thing is for sure, it's not 100% and it's not 0%.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:55 PM on November 18, 2007

The importance and prestige ascribed to quantitative measures of mental agility in our society speaks ill of our values.
posted by limon at 1:56 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

doesn't anyone want to answer the question? or is the answer something people don't want to admit?

No one wants to bother, because it's a bullshit question.

Using your criteria of "is it useful" to know something, then we could safely ignore the majority of complex Mathematics.
posted by jsonic at 1:58 PM on November 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

1) Breaking up points by using a number system is inherently Euro/petomitastic in it's elliptical use of the Bonehomner theory.

1) Static build up can and will result in a static charge.

4th( Language: The music with which we charm the serpents guarding another's treasure.

C) Foreskins are teh devil.
posted by nola at 1:59 PM on November 18, 2007

iknowimaloser, I guess I (and others) question the veracity of the test itself. IQ is a notoriously controversial subject in psychology. Measurements are not so much "intelligence" as "capabilities in certain areas," and the test does not control for how the environment the person grew up in has to do with their IQ. For instance, if you check out the twin study done on here, it analyzes a series of twin studies where it finds if both identical twins are raised in moderate-to-upper-income households there is little variance in their IQ. But once one or both are raised in low-income households, IQ variance increases dramatically. This seems obvious, as parental involvement, access to quality education, good nutrition, and other factors that promote healthy child development are more likely to not be available to the child living in poverty. Though do note in a later paper Turkheimer says it is difficult to determine exactly which factors do and do not cause this effect on IQ.

And that is very relevant, as overwhelmingly blacks are going to be in economically disadvantaged situations compared to other races. South Africa and the United States? Sure, a long history of quality education provided to black children there. And lest you argue about the above average measurements of children in poor Asian countries, remember that for the past few decades most East Asian countries have invested heavily in the educational development of their population. Certainly moreso than most African countries.

You call it a religion. I call it attempting to control for all variables.
posted by schroedinger at 1:59 PM on November 18, 2007