next »

[omnist]

I read the 30 November 2007 Chronicle Review article on "The Chosen IQ" and was curious why no one mentions the findings from neuroplasticity that apply to IQ (see The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, M.D.).  It is also useful to note that in the early days of IQ testing, Jewish IQ's were actually among the lowest tested.  That changed with the elevation of the social status of the group being tested.  More importantly, however, the data on neuroplasticity clearly show the extent to which IQ can be changed.  If we are to pursue a topic like this from a true scientific perspective, whether concerning a "chosen" or a "reviled" group, much more thorough consideration of both empirical data and theoretical constructs is needed.  Most particularly, the ongoing thesis of scientific racism needs to be challenged on scientific grounds.

[vcats]

Very good points, omnist. I hadn't known that about Jewish IQs, but it makes perfect sense. It's amazing how much hold there is to the (utterly false and not even very sensible on its face) idea that IQ is some kind of immutable trait.

Here's a good recent article about "scientific racism" and the myths of IQ.

[kingtut]

"Jewish IQ's were actually among the lowest tested. "

Do you have a reference for that, omnist?

Claims by Gould and Kamin along these lines are addressed here:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_gould_paid.html
(Scroll down to heading "Early IQ Testers, Immigration, And The Holocaust")

[spork]

How do genital warts figure into this?

[fiona]

This doesn't look like a genital wart vending site to me. But I could be in error.

The Fiona

[kingtut]

Very good points, omnist. I hadn't known that about Jewish IQs, but it makes perfect sense. It's amazing how much hold there is to the (utterly false and not even very sensible on its face) idea that IQ is some kind of immutable trait.

Here's a good recent article about "scientific racism" and the myths of IQ.

I have looked at the article by Gasper, linked to by vcats.
The Gasper article is silly.

For anyone who takes Stephen Jay Gould seriously, have a look at
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
According to a remark at the end of this Jensen article, Gould was invited to reply to Jensen. Gould did not reply.

[umdgrad]

kingtut, I wouldn't put too much weight in Gould's non-response to Jensen's critique. An author not responding to an editorial critique despite being offered happens relatively often and we have no way of knowing Gould's reasons for not responding in this case.
Next, I am not sure why you use this article to suggest that Gould should not be taken "seriously"? Seriously, Jensen himself took Gould quite seriously as an academic, therefore, being that I am certain you are not on the level of either Gould or Jensen, you should show a little respect for his work.

Regarding the Jensen article, his strongest points were regarding his clarifications of his stance on the link between IQ as a heritable trait and the black-white gap in tested IQ. Outside of that, he really presents a bunch of statements that are to this day subjects of argument among psychometricians and the like. By this I am speaking of the idea that 'g' represents a heritable trait rather than what we can actually prove it is, the single highest loading principle component factor among a number of tests. His discussion of the dated research discussed by Gould is only pointed to those who have not read the book and were not aware that these references were used to establish the social motivations underlying the development of the field of psychometrics.

[umdgrad]

By the way kingtut, I just caught your earlier post and now see that you have an agenda here. Let me assure you, for every rushton, hernstein or murray you point people to, there are probably 5 academics in the field of psychology and 10 more in the field of biology that would strongly disagree with them. The biggest problem with the arguments of the people you are relying on is that they have a tendency to ignore basic rules of science. Too many psychometricians spend time talking about the genetic basis of IQ when they do not understand genetics. Have you ever examined the percentage of geneticists, or biologists in general that agree with Rushton and his ilk? Further, I have read the Bell Curve, which not surprisingly Rushton seems to think highly of. I was frankly shocked that these two were Harvard professors. It seemed to me that neither of them had ever heard of the phrase "statistical assumption" or understood what it means when you don't meet them!

[kingtut]

kingtut, I wouldn't put too much weight in Gould's non-response to Jensen's critique. An author not responding to an editorial critique despite being offered happens relatively often and we have no way of knowing Gould's reasons for not responding in this case.
Next, I am not sure why you use this article to suggest that Gould should not be taken "seriously"? Seriously, Jensen himself took Gould quite seriously as an academic, therefore, being that I am certain you are not on the level of either Gould or Jensen, you should show a little respect for his work.

Regarding the Jensen article, his strongest points were regarding his clarifications of his stance on the link between IQ as a heritable trait and the black-white gap in tested IQ. Outside of that, he really presents a bunch of statements that are to this day subjects of argument among psychometricians and the like. By this I am speaking of the idea that 'g' represents a heritable trait rather than what we can actually prove it is, the single highest loading principle component factor among a number of tests. His discussion of the dated research discussed by Gould is only pointed to those who have not read the book and were not aware that these references were used to establish the social motivations underlying the development of the field of psychometrics.

"Seriously, Jensen himself took Gould quite seriously as an academic."
THE MISMEASURE OF MAN was an attack on Jensen which received (and continues to receive) a huge amount of attention. The fact that Jensen chose to respond to such an attack is not evidence that "Jensen himself took Gould quite seriously as an academic", in my opinion.

Gould clearly thought it hugely important to disparage the work of Jensen. And yet, given the opportunity to go mano-a-mano with his enemy, Gould declines. If Jensen were really the evil buffoon that Gould depicts him as, why would Gould not seize the opportunity to further discredit him?

A similar situation involving Gould is described here:
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2016
FIRST PARAGRAPH:
"At the risk of sounding grandiose, I hereby declare myself to be involved in a bitter feud with no less a personage than Stephen Jay Gould. It all started in 1990, when I reviewed his book Wonderful Life for the New Republic. I argued, basically, that Gould is a fraud. He has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest--not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism."

Gould dismissed Robert Wright's book THE MORAL ANIMAL as "the most noted and most absurd example" of evolutionary psychology as "pop science". Wright explains why Gould is full of it. Gould does not respond when offered the opportunity.

Paul Krugman's assessment of Gould:
Gould is the John Kenneth Galbraith of his subject. That is, he is a wonderful writer who is bevolved by literary intellectuals and lionized by the media because he does not use algebra or difficult jargon. Unfortunately, it appears that he avoids these sins not because he has transcended his colleagues but because he does does not seem to understand what they have to say; and his own descriptions of what the field is about - not just the answers, but even the questions - are consistently misleading. His impressive literary and historical erudition makes his work seem profound to most readers, but informed readers eventually conclude that there's no there there. (And yes, there is some resentment of his fame: in the field the unjustly famous theory of "punctuated equilibrium", in which Gould and Niles Eldredge asserted that evolution proceeds not steadily but in short bursts of rapid change, is known as "evolution by jerks").
FROM
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1U9zBaw-jR8J:web.mit.edu/krugman/www/evolute.html+krugman+gould&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[kingtut]

By the way kingtut, I just caught your earlier post and now see that you have an agenda here. Let me assure you, for every rushton, hernstein or murray you point people to, there are probably 5 academics in the field of psychology and 10 more in the field of biology that would strongly disagree with them. The biggest problem with the arguments of the people you are relying on is that they have a tendency to ignore basic rules of science. Too many psychometricians spend time talking about the genetic basis of IQ when they do not understand genetics. Have you ever examined the percentage of geneticists, or biologists in general that agree with Rushton and his ilk? Further, I have read the Bell Curve, which not surprisingly Rushton seems to think highly of. I was frankly shocked that these two were Harvard professors. It seemed to me that neither of them had ever heard of the phrase "statistical assumption" or understood what it means when you don't meet them!

Have a look at
IQ-Race Crimethink Alert! Francis Crick, James Watson's DNA partner, also guilty
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/francis-crick-james-watsons-partner-was.html

[umdgrad]

Kingtut, I am unclear as to why you think that linking to opinion articles somehow buoy's your position? Have you actually analyzed the literature in this area yourself? It is quite simple for anyone to attach a link to an article of some person who is at the extremes of some issue. But what does that add to the discussion. First, Paul Krugman, is irrelevant to a discussion of IQ, genetics, evolutionary biology as well as any field relative to this discussion. Second, each of the people you have named in your "argument" are clearly outside the general thinking in their fields. You, as well as Jensen and the other should look up the current literature on evolutionary biology and genetics. What you will find are scores of scientists who find these types of arguments baseless and highly unscientific. Start with Ernest Mayr, he is renowned for his scientific theory rather than extreme views on either side of any social issue.

[pyshnov]

I am so happy that a dozen of books which I never wanted to read are all garbage. I also hope that the IQ of which I have no idea what it is, must also be garbage. I will continue not to read anything on psychology/sociology. I bet that what is intuitively perceived in this area on the basis of purely anecdotal evidence and traditional opinions is as close to reality as it can be, simply because the reality in these areas is just not a law of nature.

I don't know if it fits here, but here is how a Russian joke goes:
Science is a search for a black cat in the dark room.
Religion is a search for a black cat in the dark room, but there is no cat.
Marxism-Leninism is a search for a black cat in the dark room, there is no cat, but from time to time they shout "We got it!"

See how low Russians put the value of social sciences?

[umdgrad]

I am so happy that a dozen of books which I never wanted to read are all garbage. I also hope that the IQ of which I have no idea what it is, must also be garbage. I will continue not to read anything on psychology/sociology. I bet that what is intuitively perceived in this area on the basis of purely anecdotal evidence and traditional opinions is as close to reality as it can be, simply because the reality in these areas is just not a law of nature.

pyshnov, it is kind of senseless to say you dismiss something as meaningless and then admit you don't read it and therefore have no understanding of it. Also, the end of your post seems to suggest that the only information or knowledge that matters is that which pertains to natural law (by the way how are you defining this). I am sure you are not that limited in perspective so please explain what you mean.

[kingtut]

Kingtut, I am unclear as to why you think that linking to opinion articles somehow buoy's your position? Have you actually analyzed the literature in this area yourself? It is quite simple for anyone to attach a link to an article of some person who is at the extremes of some issue. But what does that add to the discussion. First, Paul Krugman, is irrelevant to a discussion of IQ, genetics, evolutionary biology as well as any field relative to this discussion. Second, each of the people you have named in your "argument" are clearly outside the general thinking in their fields. You, as well as Jensen and the other should look up the current literature on evolutionary biology and genetics. What you will find are scores of scientists who find these types of arguments baseless and highly unscientific. Start with Ernest Mayr, he is renowned for his scientific theory rather than extreme views on either side of any social issue.

umdgrad writes,
"By this I am speaking of the idea that 'g' represents a heritable trait rather than what we can actually prove it is, the single highest loading principle component factor among a number of tests."

umdgrad, if you think that "the idea that 'g' represents a heritable trait" is a matter of controversy, then I think that YOU would be well advised to have a look through the literature. Though the DEGREE of heritability may not be settled, I think that the FACT of g's heritability is about as established as anything in the social sciences. Am I wrong about this? Please cite an article claiming that g is not heritable.


 I think that the Jensen "Strawpersons" article show that THE MISMEASURE OF MAN is a thoroughly dishonest misrepesentation of pychometric research in general and of Jensen's work in particular. Jensen lists 8 specific misrepresentations by Gould of Jensen's work. Gould was invited to respond, so he could have explained these 8 instances, if he had explanations. If Gould had been able to show that Jensen's list was baloney, this would have been a serious blow to Jensen's credibility. But, no response from Gould.
(Lots more at
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.html
but be warned, it's by the evil Rushton, so you might sully your eyes.)
However, the rotten core of Gould's character assassination is the baloney about "reification." It just so happens that, based on the results of IQ tests, we can assign a single number to an individual which explains quite a lot. VERY far from everything, but quite a lot, for a single number. See, for example, papers at
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/
The things about IQ being a "hard thing in the head" and a linear "scale of worth" for individuals are just some of Gould's many strawpwersons, certainly having no basis in the work of Jensen and probably no basis in the work of his other targets.

[kingtut]

I wrote
"The things about IQ being a "hard thing in the head" and a linear "scale of worth" for individuals are just some of Gould's many strawpwersons, certainly having no basis in the work of Jensen and probably no basis in the work of his other targets."

I should revise the last phrase to be "and probably no basis in the work of other current pychometricians."
I doubt that anyone in this field has ever thought of IQ as being a physical entity, as in that Gould strawperson. However, people judge the "worth" of others in many ways, and there are some who judge the "worth" of others based on their ability to do the sort of reasoning tested by IQ tests.Here's a quote from the NYT:
   "On the wall of Graham's old office, in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was a sign: ANYONE WHO CANNOT COPE WITH MATHEMATICS IS NOT FULLY HUMAN. AT BEST HE IS A TOLERABLE SUBHUMAN WHO HAS LEARNED TO WEAR SHOES, BATHE, AND NOT MAKE MESSES IN THE HOUSE."
 I doubt that you'll find anything pertaining to IQ as a measure of "worth" in the current pychometrics literature, though.