Race, Intelligence and the value of scientific inquiry - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 12:35 PM

I wasn’t sure where to post this, politics (hehe just kidding), knowledge or philosophy but I think philosophy will be best.

Recently, perhaps one of the worlds best known living scientists dropped this bombshell.

Quote:

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

By Cahal Milmo
Published: 17 October 2007

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

Now we have a Nobel prize winning geneticist saying that blacks are not as smart as whites. Hes 79 years old, which leads me to three possibilities. Hes just crazy old and saying what he feels off the cuff like crazy old people do. He is looking for free publicity and man he is going to get it here, or perhaps he is old enough not to care, its not like he is in line for any grants or chairmanships which can be revoked. Copernicus didn’t release his theory that the planets revolved around the Sun until his deathbed for obvious reasons, and perhaps this is a bit of the same. His age makes him untouchable.

Regardless that doesn’t matter, none of the above makes him right or wrong.

Now being a news piece and having not read his book it contains no details here.

One quote does stand out though..

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

This is true. Its also a non-judgmental statement if it stands alone. All of the races have somewhat different abilities in general . There is more than skin color that makes a race, and had we been isolated long enough I can say without a doubt we would have been different species at some point. That didn’t happen, and we ‘remixed’ soon enough to prevent that, but still we do have some differences.

There is NO reason to expect intelligence to be different in this. Yet perhaps the quickest route to hell as a scientist is to claim there is a measurable difference. When those differences are found the culprit is almost universally labeled as the test, and it was testing biased which is claimed to have caused the difference, not real intelligence. Hell we can’t even make claims of differences in males vrs females in brain function and development without catching hell and those are in fact well documented.

Added to this you have typical variation where there will always be overlap. Even if the race as a whole were less intelligent compared to another race there would be a great deal of overlap.

So the question here isn’t are blacks less intelligent than whites, none of us has fair data to make this claim, no matter what your personal thoughts are.

No my question is this. If you had an airtight test to gauge a persons intelligence, no claims of cultural bias could be made, would it be ethical to use it on a population?
Normally I am always for the truth scientifically. It doesn’t matter how inconvenient that truth is or how unpopular. In this scenario though, I have to wonder, what good it would do?

In an ideal world, the one we don’t live in, you could argue that it would be a just cause for accepting lower test scores into schools, or perhaps adjusting curriculums to fit different educational goals. Being we don’t’ live in said world, the real use of such data would be justification of racism and further segregation. Also while perhaps such data would be true for the populations it would not be true for individuals. Exceptional individuals from the intellectually inferior race may be pressured to not pursue goals which would require high intelligence. This would be grossly unfair and detrimental for society as their contributions would be lost.

So for me the question that needs to be answered isn’t are whites as a group smarter than blacks, or are Asians really the best at math, but if any benefit can come from such information.

sapiens · 10-17-2007, 12:57 PM

Ugh. That article mischaracterizes the arguments presented in The Bell Curve. Race is only discussed in one chapter of the (very long) book. It also mischaracterizes the criticisms. Herrnstein & Murrary received a lot of criticism, but less from leading scientists who actually examine individual differences.

A couple of things to note:

1) Scores on an IQ score do not equal "Intelligence". Intelligence is a psychological construct. IQ scores are an approximation of that construct.
2) Independent of "Cultural Bias", IQ scores predict many academic, economic, and social outcomes in the United States (and other Western nations). Intelligence is culturally specific. What is intelligent in the United States is unlikely to be what is intelligent in sub-Saharan Africa. IQ scores are unlikely to predict as much in other cultures.

To answer your question: The modern IQ test may be the most reliable psychology test ever invented. It's predictive validity is well established. I don't see any harm in giving someone a test. What you propose to do with the scores is more of an issue. I suppose knowing your own strengths and weaknesses may help you make decisions about career tracks. Though most research I have read indicates that interests trump abilities when considering job satisfaction. (The Strong Occupational Interest Inventory better predicts job satisfaction that any test of ability).

roachboy · 10-17-2007, 01:02 PM

moments like this bring milton freidman of all people to mind. one of freidman's positions is that when a corporation tries to act ethically, it steps outside of its collective competence--which is making money--and in so doing begins making serious errors. to go after this statement requires that one step behind it and take apart the assumptions on whcih it is based (particularly the separation of economic rationality from other areas of human activity)---but putting that aside, and the political problems that go along with friedman, and just looking at the claim itself, i think it applies quite well to watson. so there's no reason to take seriously what he says as a public figure. outside his field--and even (apparently) when it comes to make extrapolations based on his research areas that run into more complicated social questions, there's no reason to take him seriously.

on the question, though, it seems that the classical chicken-egg question of context vs. abilities comes in here.

how exactly does one go about controlling for contextual factors?

much of subsaharan africa performs (in various ways) the implications left to open by european colonialism. like it or not--there's no way around it. this obtains at one level or another across a host of areas of social life, from education to organization of agricultural production, from the nature and role of the state to questions of medical policy. so much of the infrastructure remains marked by its history since 1960 (say)...if the infrastructure if a wreck, and if education is an element of infrastructure, then it seems logical that the "post-colonial" or neocolonial history of these areas is a overwhelming factor--and that attempting to develop an "intelligence test" that would erase this as a factor seems little more than running away from the legacy of colonialism itself.

just another attempt to quantify an exercise in blaming the victims of colonialism for the effects of colonialism.

this is of course a very general statement and should be broken up as the conditions it refers to in general are differentially distributed and differentially important--but i raise it to indicate a general problem with the idea ustwo puts forward in the op.

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Ugh. That article mischaracterizes the arguments presented in The Bell Curve. Race is only discussed in one chapter of the (very long) book. It also mischaracterizes the criticisms. Herrnstein & Murrary received a lot of criticism, but less from leading scientists who actually examine individual differences.

A couple of things to note:

1) Scores on an IQ score do not equal "Intelligence". Intelligence is a psychological construct. IQ scores are an approximation of that construct.
2) Independent of "Cultural Bias", IQ scores predict many academic, economic, and social outcomes in the United States (and other Western nations). Intelligence is culturally specific. What is intelligent in the United States is unlikely to be what is intelligent in sub-Saharan Africa. IQ scores are unlikely to predict as much in other cultures.

To answer your question: The modern IQ test may be the most reliable psychology test ever invented. It's predictive validity is well established. I don't see any harm in giving someone a test. What you propose to do with the scores is more of an issue. I suppose knowing your own strengths and weaknesses may help you make decisions about career tracks. Though most research I have read indicates that interests trump abilities when considering job satisfaction. (The Strong Occupational Interest Inventory better predicts job satisfaction that any test of ability).

I pretty much tuned out the article after Watson's quotes myself. It seemed to be pretty standard fare for this kind of topic.

Still though, I'd be interested in your thoughts if such a true 'intelligence' test were possible.

sapiens · 10-17-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

moments like this bring milton freidman of all people to mind. one of freidman's positions is that when a corporation tries to act ethically, it steps outside of its collective competence--which is making money--and in so doing begins making serious errors. to go after this statement requires that one step behind it and take apart the assumptions on whcih it is based (particularly the separation of economic rationality from other areas of human activity)---but putting that aside, and the political problems that go along with friedman, and just looking at the claim itself, i think it applies quite well to watson. so there's no reason to take seriously what he says as a public figure. outside his field--and even (apparently) when it comes to make extrapolations based on his research areas that run into more complicated social questions, there's no reason to take him seriously.

Agreed. He appears to be speaking outside of his area of expertise.

Quote:

on the question, though, it seems that the classical chicken-egg question of context vs. abilities comes in here.

how exactly does one go about controlling for contextual factors?

Well, when considering intelligence as measured by IQ tests, we can use behavior genetic methods (adoption studies, twin studies, family studies, etc.) to partial out genetic effects, shared environmental effects, and unshared environmental effects). These methods are at least better than the standard approach (it must all be caused by the environment).

Quote:

much of subsaharan africa performs (in various ways) the implications left to open by european colonialism. like it or not--there's no way around it. this obtains at one level or another across a host of areas of social life, from education to organization of agricultural production, from the nature and role of the state to questions of medical policy. so much of the infrastructure remains marked by its history since 1960 (say)...if the infrastructure if a wreck, and if education is an element of infrastructure, then it seems logical that the "post-colonial" or neocolonial history of these areas is a overwhelming factor--and that attempting to develop an "intelligence test" that would erase this as a factor seems little more than running away from the legacy of colonialism itself.

just another attempt to quantify an exercise in blaming the victims of colonialism for the effects of colonialism.

I picked sub-saharan Africa randomly. My point was that IQ tests are culturally specific. Intelligence will be different in subsaharan africa, what it takes to be "successful" in subsaharan africa likely differs from what it takes to be successful in Chicago.

Presumably, we could design an intelligence test for that culture that could predict outcomes within that culture. So, the effects of culture would be minimized, presuming that everyone within that culture experiences those effects equally. Who knows whether intelligence as measured by that culture's IQ scores would be heritable. It's quite possible that social forces account for a greater proportion of the variance in social outcomes than scores on an IQ test. The effects of colonialism might have less of an effect within culture. Again, I'm not comparing IQ scores in America to IQ scores on an American test in subsaharan africa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Still though, I'd be interested in your thoughts if such a true 'intelligence' test were possible.

What do you mean by a "true intelligence test"?

ratbastid · 10-17-2007, 01:51 PM

The whole notion of "intelligence" is western and caucasio-centric. To say, "oh, look, those people from other cultures--they're not as good at us at the things we, as a culture, do" isn't exactly breakthrough thinking.

The problem comes from a application of value to the term "intelligence". In reality, being intelligent (however it's defined) isn't any more valuable than not being intelligent--above some baseline survival-level capacity, anyway.

sapiens · 10-17-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The whole notion of "intelligence" is western and caucasio-centric. To say, "oh, look, those people from other cultures--they're not as good at us at the things we, as a culture, do" isn't exactly breakthrough thinking.

Intelligence in the IQ sense, perhaps. But do you have any evidence that individuals from non-western cultures do not distinguish between bright and less bright individuals within their own culture?

Quote:

In reality, being intelligent (however it's defined) isn't any more valuable than not being intelligent--above some baseline survival-level capacity, anyway.

It depends on what you value. Within the United States, intelligence as measured by an IQ score predicts a great deal. It also predicts many outcomes beyond "survival". (If it predicts anything it, it must predict beyond survival level capacity - you must survive to both take the test and be measured at a later date).

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

What do you mean by a "true intelligence test"?

One where you could erase the cultural bias all together, a measure of intelligence potential. I'm only speaking hypothetical as no such test exists.

Twin studies have already shown that intelligence is indeed heritable, it would be somewhat foolhardy to assume that interracially there are not genetically determined differences in the brain.

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 02:30 PM

I'd be fascinated to see raw data on any double blind studies done by reputable organizations or schools involving the relationship between race and intellect. While controversial, this is the kind of thing that allows us an amazing look back at our development as a species. I don't care if people think it's racist. Proven and unbiased data can't be racist.

I have no clue as to whether one race may or may not be more intelligent than any other, but having known intelligent people of many races, it either isn't true or isn't obvious.

The_Jazz · 10-17-2007, 02:37 PM

I find that this theory fits quite nicely in my own personal theory that all people are idiots, at least part time. Intelligence, unlike dick measuring, can not be quantified in a number. But like dick measuring, it is completely pointless.

sapiens · 10-17-2007, 02:41 PM

I don't think that intelligence is a universal psychological construct. What is intelligent in one culture may very well be considered clueless in another. So, there could never be a "true intelligence test" for everyone in the world.

I would consider using American IQ tests to evaluate the intelligence of members of non-western cultures to be culturally biased. Within the United States, scores on an IQ test predict a variety of outcomes regardless of your race/ethnicity. Because the IQ test predicts social outcomes regardless of race or ethnicity within the united states, I don't consider it to be culturally biased when used within the united states.

If there was such a thing as a "True intelligence test" (again, most evidence suggests that there is not), I'm not sure what benefit would come from testing everyone.

Incidently, there is debate within the field of intelligence about whether intelligence is a domain general ability (like a general problem solving ability), or a number of domain specific abilities. (Few deny the predictive power of IQ scores, but they do debate what an IQ score represents). Thurstone forwarded Primary Mental Abilities theory which argued that we don't have one ability (as represented by an IQ score), rather we have many specific intellectual abilities. He included verbal comprehension, word fluency, number, spatial ability, associative memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning or induction. Others, like Gardener, have argued for even more specific abilities. These conceptualizations suggest that individuals in diverse cultures would be considered "intelligent" to the extent that the individual possesses the specific abilities necessary to succeed in that in those specific environments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd be fascinated to see raw data on any double blind studies done by reputable organizations or schools involving the relationship between race and intellect. While controversial, this is the kind of thing that allows us an amazing look back at our development as a species. I don't care if people think it's racist. Proven and unbiased data can't be racist.

There are reputable studies done by reputable researchers at reputable schools and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. I don't have time to give you examples right now. Off the top of my head, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth is one reputable data set. The raw data is available, but what would you do with the raw data? And how would double-blinding help? Most IQ tests are administered via a paper/pencil test. The outcome data is objective and demographic. Plus, this is all correlational research, not experimental.

Quote:

I have no clue as to whether one race may or may not be more intelligent than any other, but having known intelligent people of many races, it either isn't true or isn't obvious.

I don't particularly care whether self-identified members of one ethnic group score differently than self-identified members of another ethnic group, but my experience with people of many races is irrelevant - personal experience is not aparticularly good source of data.

Ustwo · 10-17-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I find that this theory fits quite nicely in my own personal theory that all people are idiots, at least part time. Intelligence, unlike dick measuring, can not be quantified in a number. But like dick measuring, it is completely pointless.

Tell that to a girl who ended up with a 4 incher.

My question though isn't if it is an idiotic thing to say. Its easy to argue its an idiotic thing to say for a lot of reasons.

My question is, is it an idiotic thing to say, even if its true?

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Tell that to a girl who ended up with a 4 incher.

Or a 14 incher, for that matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My question though isn't if it is an idiotic thing to say. Its easy to argue its an idiotic thing to say for a lot of reasons.

My question is, is it an idiotic thing to say, even if its true?

I don't think it's idiotic. It lacks tact, certainly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

There are reputable studies done by reputable researchers at reputable schools and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. I don't have time to give you examples right now. Off the top of my head, the National Longitudinal Study of Youth is one reputable data set. The raw data is available, but what would you do with the raw data? And how would double-blinding help? Most IQ tests are administered via a paper/pencil test. The outcome data is objective and demographic. Plus, this is all correlational research, not experimental.

Double blind helps to keep people honest. I'd want to see how the study was done to ensure fairness and reliability of the numbers and to give the outcome proper context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I don't particularly care whether self-identified members of one ethnic group score differently than self-identified members of another ethnic group, but my experience with people of many races is irrelevant - personal experience is not aparticularly good source of data.

It was more of an off hand ascertain (or guess) than anything else. I really have no clue.

Speaking briefly to the IQ test, assuming you have people who have similar backgrounds and cultural influences of different races are tested, and then having more and more of that, it's not unreasonable to think the data may be reliable. Yes, the IQ test is not the end all be all of measures of intelligence, but it's one of the best tools we have.

sapiens · 10-17-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Double blind helps to keep people honest. I'd want to see how the study was done to ensure fairness and reliability of the numbers and to give the outcome proper context.

I'm aware of what a double-blind test is - both experimenters and participants are unaware of the experimental group the participant is in. I'm just curious to know how it would be done using the correlational methods used in intelligence research. If you are studying IQ, typically you are collecting data on a variety of demographic variables up front, including race. IQ tests are typically administered using paper and pencil forms. 1) How will you blind the paper form to race? 2) How will you blind the participant to their own race?

Quote:

Speaking briefly to the IQ test, assuming you have people who have similar backgrounds and cultural influences of different races are tested, and then having more and more of that, it's not unreasonable to think the data may be reliable.

I'm not sure what you mean. If people have similar backgrounds, how can you test cultural influences? If you mean that they all need to come from similar socioeconomic status, they do not. Differences in IQ due to SES (or any other variable) can be controlled statistically as long as you have a sufficient sample size. I do agree that more studies showing the same results increases confidence in the validity of the results.

Quote:

Yes, the IQ test is not the end all be all of measures of intelligence, but it's one of the best tools we have.

The standard IQ test (probably the WAIS) is probably the most valid test of intelligence that exists.

Infinite_Loser · 10-17-2007, 05:41 PM

Ah... Ha... I laughed when I read this.

At the risk of sounding like a racist, it's usually whites (People of European decent) who could, in general, be classified as 'less inteligent'. The only reason I say this is because, historically, Europe has typically lagged behind other non-European cultures in terms of advances in math, science, medicine, engineering etc. Screw what IQ tests. I'd rather look at history.

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I'm aware of what a double-blind test is - both experimenters and participants are unaware of the experimental group the participant is in. I'm just curious to know how it would be done using the correlational methods used in intelligence research. If you are studying IQ, typically you are collecting data on a variety of demographic variables up front, including race. IQ tests are typically administered using paper and pencil forms. 1) How will you blind the paper form to race? 2) How will you blind the participant to their own race?

I remember standardized testing in schools. They asked my ethnicity, but never (until like a minute ago) did I think they may be using that to qualify my race's intellect. If it's just one of many black dots, I'd guess that only a few people may guess what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I'm not sure what you mean. If people have similar backgrounds, how can you test cultural influences? If you mean that they all need to come from similar socioeconomic status, they do not. Differences in IQ due to SES (or any other variable) can be controlled statistically as long as you have a sufficient sample size. I do agree that more studies showing the same results increases confidence in the validity of the results.

Make it a part of a questionnaire to throw them off the trail.

Yes, a bigger sample and more tests would be best before conclusions were drawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

The standard IQ test (probably the WAIS) is probably the most valid test of intelligence that exists.

I like it (probably because i do well on it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Ah... Ha... I laughed when I read this.

At the risk of sounding like a racist, it's usually whites (People of European decent) who could, in general, be classified as 'less inteligent'. The only reason I say this is because, historically, Europe has typically lagged behind other non-European cultures in terms of advances in math, science, medicine, engineering etc. Screw what IQ tests. I'd rather look at history.

The guns/germs/steel advantage translated to quicker advancing science, math, medicine, and engineering in Europe. Read Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

Infinite_Loser · 10-17-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The guns/germs/steel advantage translated to quicker advancing science, math, medicine, and engineering in Europe. Read Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

Yes yes... I've read it before. The book basically asserts that European dominance is/was the direct result of a favorable environment while ignoring other important factors (Such an imperialism and/or colonialism).

Willravel · 10-17-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Yes yes... I've read it before. The book basically asserts that European dominance is/was the direct result of a favorable environment while ignoring other important factors (Such an imperialism and/or colonialism).

It ignores the things that didn't factor in, yes. One of the best books ever written.<

10-17-2007, 12:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sonoran Desert	Ugh. That article mischaracterizes the arguments presented in The Bell Curve. Race is only discussed in one chapter of the (very long) book. It also mischaracterizes the criticisms. Herrnstein & Murrary received a lot of criticism, but less from leading scientists who actually examine individual differences. A couple of things to note: 1) Scores on an IQ score do not equal "Intelligence". Intelligence is a psychological construct. IQ scores are an approximation of that construct. 2) Independent of "Cultural Bias", IQ scores predict many academic, economic, and social outcomes in the United States (and other Western nations). Intelligence is culturally specific. What is intelligent in the United States is unlikely to be what is intelligent in sub-Saharan Africa. IQ scores are unlikely to predict as much in other cultures. To answer your question: The modern IQ test may be the most reliable psychology test ever invented. It's predictive validity is well established. I don't see any harm in giving someone a test. What you propose to do with the scores is more of an issue. I suppose knowing your own strengths and weaknesses may help you make decisions about career tracks. Though most research I have read indicates that interests trump abilities when considering job satisfaction. (The Strong Occupational Interest Inventory better predicts job satisfaction that any test of ability). __________________ You can't go against nature Because when you do Go against nature It's part of nature too. - Love and Rockets

10-17-2007, 01:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	moments like this bring milton freidman of all people to mind. one of freidman's positions is that when a corporation tries to act ethically, it steps outside of its collective competence--which is making money--and in so doing begins making serious errors. to go after this statement requires that one step behind it and take apart the assumptions on whcih it is based (particularly the separation of economic rationality from other areas of human activity)---but putting that aside, and the political problems that go along with friedman, and just looking at the claim itself, i think it applies quite well to watson. so there's no reason to take seriously what he says as a public figure. outside his field--and even (apparently) when it comes to make extrapolations based on his research areas that run into more complicated social questions, there's no reason to take him seriously. on the question, though, it seems that the classical chicken-egg question of context vs. abilities comes in here. how exactly does one go about controlling for contextual factors? much of subsaharan africa performs (in various ways) the implications left to open by european colonialism. like it or not--there's no way around it. this obtains at one level or another across a host of areas of social life, from education to organization of agricultural production, from the nature and role of the state to questions of medical policy. so much of the infrastructure remains marked by its history since 1960 (say)...if the infrastructure if a wreck, and if education is an element of infrastructure, then it seems logical that the "post-colonial" or neocolonial history of these areas is a overwhelming factor--and that attempting to develop an "intelligence test" that would erase this as a factor seems little more than running away from the legacy of colonialism itself. just another attempt to quantify an exercise in blaming the victims of colonialism for the effects of colonialism. this is of course a very general statement and should be broken up as the conditions it refers to in general are differentially distributed and differentially important--but i raise it to indicate a general problem with the idea ustwo puts forward in the op. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-17-2007, 02:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel [wil-ruh-VEL] Join Date: Aug 2004	I'd be fascinated to see raw data on any double blind studies done by reputable organizations or schools involving the relationship between race and intellect. While controversial, this is the kind of thing that allows us an amazing look back at our development as a species. I don't care if people think it's racist. Proven and unbiased data can't be racist. I have no clue as to whether one race may or may not be more intelligent than any other, but having known intelligent people of many races, it either isn't true or isn't obvious. __________________ ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

10-17-2007, 02:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
The_Jazz Attacking at dawn Administrator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Chicago	I find that this theory fits quite nicely in my own personal theory that all people are idiots, at least part time. Intelligence, unlike dick measuring, can not be quantified in a number. But like dick measuring, it is completely pointless. __________________ The proud dad of Max since 2/15/06 and Andrew since 1/9/08! "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-17-2007, 05:41 PM	#15 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lake Mary, FL	Ah... Ha... I laughed when I read this. At the risk of sounding like a racist, it's usually whites (People of European decent) who could, in general, be classified as 'less inteligent'. The only reason I say this is because, historically, Europe has typically lagged behind other non-European cultures in terms of advances in math, science, medicine, engineering etc. Screw what IQ tests. I'd rather look at history. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-17-2007 at 05:46 PM.

10-17-2007, 01:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Yonder	The whole notion of "intelligence" is western and caucasio-centric. To say, "oh, look, those people from other cultures--they're not as good at us at the things we, as a culture, do" isn't exactly breakthrough thinking. The problem comes from a application of value to the term "intelligence". In reality, being intelligent (however it's defined) isn't any more valuable than not being intelligent--above some baseline survival-level capacity, anyway.