A few weeks ago I posted a compilation of clips on the subject of race and intelligence. The idea that intelligence varies significantly between groups has probably existed for as long as different groups of humans have existed. But the nature of this discourse has shifted over time. The discoveries of evolution, genes, and DNA, along with the emergence of the “intelligence quotient” concept and concomitant advances in the techniques of statistical inference, have brought the methods of modern science to bear on what was formerly the provenance of cultural narrative, myth, and ideology. This shift from cultural to scientific narrative has not made the question of group differences in intelligence any less fraught.
It is truly amusing to see Conservatives, the same group of people who bought “2000 Mules” and the Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd myth lock stock and barrel, argue in support of Charles Murray. Murray wrote a Conservative policy book and disguised it as science. There is a pretense that Stephen Gould, Thomas Sowell, and James R. Flynn never existed.
Formerly enslaved people built schools at a time when the Conservatives of the day were threatening any Black person seeking advancement. The Murray supporters of today are no different than the people who yelled Blacks could not be teachers, lawyers, or doctors. These folks also said Blacks were not intelligent enough to be quarterbacks or middle linebackers.
It is a waste of time to go on a snipe hunt with Conservatives regarding IQ.
Too quickly we react to what we fear is being said. We see things not as they are, but as we are sure, in our anger and anxiety, they must be. We rant & rave accordingly.
Some things, some issues, like those highlighted in "The Bell Curve" tend to inspire more than their fair share of rants & raves.
But let us take Glenn's in-passing summary of the work at face value...
He tells, approvingly, that “they (the authors) stress, plausibly enough, that we must be realistic in formulating policy (who would disagree?) taking due account of the unequal distribution of intellectual aptitudes in the population., recognizing that limitations of mental ability constrain what sorts of policies are likely to make a difference and how much of a difference they can make." So far so good. [Though we might still question how often, and in what circumstance a citizen's so-called mental ability is actually critical to any sort of government policy. But let us put that to the side for now.]
He goes on to say that "implicit in their argument is the judgement that we shall have to get used to there being a substantial minority of our fellows who, because of their low intelligence, may fail to perform adequately in their roles as workers, parents, and citizens." Glenn tells us he believes this is "quite wrong".
But why?
In fact, given normal demographic distribution patterns, there will always be those among us who are taller...and equally who are shorter. There will always be those who are fatter, and skinnier....faster & slower, et al. Why would we think that intelligence is any different when the world tells us over and over again: it isn’t?
In any given normal demographic distribution there will be those who really, really good at math...and those who are not. Those who can read & comprehend like a whirlwind...and those who struggle to complete a paragraph. There will be those who can write...who can sing...who can read music....who can draw & paint...who can see patterns & understand connections far better than the rest. Over and over again we see that same Great to Poor distribution of cognitive abilities....and an accompanying Great to Poor distribution of performance.
How is that ‘quite wrong’?
Nor is it wrong to believe that EVERY normal distribution of EVERY population will always show this same range of abilities even as the entire population is replaced, generation, after generation, after generation. Indeed, we have the ‘poor’ with us always. Nor will that change, just as the basic nature of Man does not change.
We must also recognize the authors’ use of the word “MAY”....as in “because of their low intelligence MAY fail to perform adequately.” How could this be untrue? In fact, we MAY also find those of high intelligence (as measured in two-dimensional IQ tests) who ‘fail to perform adequately’. But that we find these instances of ‘poorer performance’ to be more common at the lower end of an IQ score range cannot be surprising.
It is not the fact of the research presented by Murray & Herrnstein which is the problem, but the direct, causal implications of same.
IQ scores in the lower quartile do not cause crime. If low-range IQ’s were a primary cause of criminal / sociopathic behavior then the 6.5M people, here in the United States who suffer from some form of significant cognitive impairment (intellectual disability) would all be criminals. They are not. I would suspect that hardly any are.
Criminality is not caused by low IQ; neither is it caused by economic status. Crimes are committed not by faceless social forces, or categories, but by people who have decided consciously, and with malice aforethought, to break the law and hurt another human being (physically, economically, socially). The issue with sociopathic behavior is not IQ but Morality. Knowing the difference between right & wrong, good & bad, has nothing to do with one’s reasoning ability or command of logic and everything to do with one’s spiritual sensibility & human empathy, as engendered by Church, family, and community.
One’s ability to do a job, on the other hand, and do a job well...even to the point of performing above standard is very definitely related to IQ....which very definitely measures the individual’s ability to quickly comprehend and resolve conceptual problems. As Murray & Herrnstein put it, “There are better and worse ditch diggers and garbage collectors.” And there is a premium paid to those who are better because society benefits from Better.
The problem is not that there will always be some portion of any human population which will consistently score in the bottom quartile of IQ testing. And the problem is not that this lower IQ group will tend to perform more poorly on the tasks society sets before them. We accept both of those truths. The problem is that, today, that lower quartile tends to be disproportionately Black. And that means that this normal, accepted, fact of IQ distribution & associated economic/social performance (from high to low) across any given population can become....will become.... a racial category issue...when it is more truly, simply a human issue.
But we forget....
Too easily we forget that Population Groups don’t apply for jobs, people do. Demographic categories are not responsible for task performance, individuals are. So the fact that IQ is distributed across the population in a bell-shaped curve is meaningless. The fact that ability, drive, ambition, talent, skill...that all these qualities are distributed across any given population, from high to low, from great to poor...is meaningless. No one really should care about Group Averages because no one IS that group. Rather we are individuals, measured as individuals, given opportunities as individuals ...who will rise or fall, as individuals.
We are responsible for ourselves. What happens to category averages does not happen to us.
Glenn’s life of accomplishment is his, not any of the categories he represents (Black, Midwesterner, Chicago native, Junior College grad, math major, MIT doctorate, divorced dad, arthritis sufferer).
To treat people as Category Reps and design policies accordingly is to dehumanize them.
As Justice Roberts quite plainly said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’ Equally the way to stop worrying about group averages is to stop worrying about them...to stop identifying with them. I am not / you are not The Group.
The Blind Spot is the one that prevents us from seeing that.
When I was young, I got the idea that I could run track in high school. I decided I would run the mile. All I needed was mental toughness. While I could run only an average 100-yard dash, I reckoned if I put 18 of those together, I would be a very good miler.
I quickly learned mental toughness wasn't enough. You break down physically. The oxygen doesn't make it to your leg muscles fast enough. It didn't take Einstein to predict that, but I really wanted to be on the track team.
Marathoners have polygenic patterns that correlate with endurance. Some of the kids at my school had genomes more in line with the marathoners than I did. Those kids didn't need mental toughness or drive or discipline to run circles around me.
I would have been doomed to a life of misery if someone had pushed me to make long-distance running the centerpiece of my life. Some people are tall, some are less so. Some are attractive, some are less so. Some people are smart, some people are less so. Some process oxygen super efficiently, some don't. Identify your strengths and do the best you can. There are a million paths to contentment.
A greyhound is going to be miserable if you make him jump in icy water and retrieve ducks. A Labrador retriever will go hungry trying to chase down rabbits in an open field. We need to stop trying to pound square pegs into round holes -- no matter how useful it might be politically.
Glenn's prejudice in regard to the reality of intelligence quotients, averaged out in groups, is a delusional dishonesty. What exactly does Glenn mean when he says "Treating such matters of the human spirit as mere epiphenomena of material social processes betrays a kind of disciplinary arrogance. It risks opening the door to an unjustified pessimism about the future of human development." What absolute piffle. Glenn is more intelligent than I am, but so what? I am more intelligent than someone else, so what? Glenn has no solution and restating the obvious is tedious. Glenn wants the world to somehow ignore what it already knows. If Glenn is suggesting that cruel misuse of this fact-of-life, is inapproptiate, then I agree. Acknowledge the unpalatable facts and then leave the scrab alone.
Thomas Sowell, as I recall, liked to point out that differences across groups are very small compared to the differences within any group. In most cases the information one can derive about an individual based on his own achievements outweighs the information based on the average of whatever demographic group he might be a member of. I think what motivates Glenn is the desire to be judged on his own merits rather than on a meaningless demographic average. Knowing how the average academic ability of Black Americans compares with that of white Americans provides us with no information about how my academic ability compares with Glenn or John’s. Indeed, it is completely misleading.
The point is to design a society in which anyone, regardless of race or intelligence, can have a rich and fulfilling life as long as they work hard and play by the rules. Like this one for example: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
My observation of humanity brings me to the conclusion that genes have a small part in intelligence, with culture the greater factor. I remember watching a documentary several decades back where an Australian anthropologist studying Aboriginal culture created an "IQ" test around pattern recognition. She then gave this test to Aboriginal children and non-Aboriginal children. If one has ever looked at Aboriginal art, there's no surprise who scored well. But we're not in outback Australia and we have to survive in our culture. Different skills are needed, and I believe innate intelligence is evenly distributed across all populations, but it must be developed. If I remember correctly, Murray and Bell lumped Europeans together into one result. I later looked up the average IQ scores by individual country and there was some significant variation in my opinion. The same happened when I looked at Asia and Africa. Then there was "The German Story" on page 310, where the illegitimate children of German women and American servicemen were tested and there was no significant IQ difference between the 264 children fathered by black Americans, and 83 children fathered by white serviceman. They go on to say that since the IQ's of the fathers were not known, selection could not be ruled out. They seem to be suggesting the young German women were going around looking for IQ during the Occupation. Women are not any better than men at mate selection and I find their IQ selection suggestion quite funny. The environmental factors that Murray and Bell considered did not include exposure to pollution. I also don't remember them comparing performance in single-sex vs co-ed schools. My own 63 years as a female has shown me males will almost always perform better when trying to top the performance of females. In families and cultures where there is a history of cultivating academic performance, people will perform better, and I can tell you this as a small farmer, cultivation takes time and successive generations.
In the second paragraph of his essay, Glenn talks about "formulating policy, taking due account of the unequal distribution of intellectual aptitudes in the population."
If we want to apply such policies, we don't need to use crude eligibility tests like holding up one of the skin-tone cards from the internet memes to each applicant's face. Instead, we can give applicants a test that individually measures their aptitude for whatever it is the policy targets.
That has been the standard method for assessing intellectual ability, which has recently been discarded, but is now being resurrected at a few schools. Are you talking about testing people's aptitude to perform specific jobs? There is a bunch of research showing that the best predictors of job performance are tests that require potential trainees and employees to perform the skills they will need to do the job. Nevertheless, this type of testing is not done as often as it should be.
But equally, we need to drop the naive assumption that any unevenness in the pigmentation of the various achievement levels is necessarily evidence of discrimination and oppression.
This an extremely interesting subject for me. Hope you pursue this topic further. I’d like to see you and John host a debate between Sowell and Murray.
I wonder how our hunter-gatherer ancestors handled low IQ members of the group. My guess is that natural selection selected for high IQ among other desirable traits.
Probably so, but people with average IQ's can have non-intellectual talents. Good trackers need abilities which many other species of predators also have. Ability to tan hides and turn them into clothing requires manual dexterity and innate talent in designing and fitting clothes.
Yes. These abilities and skills come under “other desirable traits”. Many high IQ people lack social and other desirable skills/traits that limit their function in society. To be a valued member of society doesn’t require a high IQ.
The data and analysis in The Bell Curve is very impressive and not easily dismissed. It seems likely to me that the abilities being measured by the usual intelligence tests are real. There is a big part of those tests, however, that measures the person's "fund of information," which very probably varies with how widely read the person is, and that is in turn a function of other cultural variables.
I think that "success," especially financial success has more to do with what vocational paths people choose. One reason (but not the only one) why employed women earn less than employed men is that the work that interests more women than men tends to be less well paid. Work involving "service to others," especially kids, for example, tends to be underpaid. The same is true for traditional visual arts, such as painting and photography. Jobs that have paid well for men are not all knowledge based: contracting and self employment in small but growing businesses are examples.
This is a capitalist system pattern that is not necessarily related to supply and demand, but more to other factors. These factors include cultural valuation of certain kinds of work over others, and certainly also biases. Women have historically been expected to provide all of the childcare, nursing of the ill and dying, and so on, for free. The national loss of manufacturing jobs has been devastating for men and their families, as many of these jobs paid enough for families to live on one income.
With regard to the performance of black kids and adults, I always return to the fact that if kids are not consistently attending school, and not receiving enough support for academic achievement in their homes and neighborhoods, they will not perform anywhere near their capacities. And this is clearly the case, so the emphasis should be on motivation and what it takes to increase it.
Roland Fryer did a study that pretty convincingly (to me at least) shows that academic achievement and capacity gaps can be bridged pretty thoroughly if lower-achieving populations (1) spend more time in school than higher-achieving cohorts, (2) are provided intensive individualized or small-group tutoring, (3) are protected from disorder and interruption in the learning environment, and (4) have their progress routinely monitored to ensure the effectiveness of the curriculum.
It would be wonderful if those things could happen! I think that the element of individual attention might be important for more than academic reasons. Kids from single parent homes, with the parent employed full time, often need more individual attention than they are getting. Kids need to be able to believe in themselves and need to be able to imagine positive future possibilities. Boys need positive, caring male role models as well.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century German "academics" had a far greater amount of "scholarship" on the German, Aryan and other "races." Is that scholarship any less valid than any scholarship on "race" as skin color? If not less valid, why have scholars not studied IQ based on hair color and eye color groups? I don't ask this cynically. Is German scholarship on Aryan blonde hair and blue eyes less valid than "scholarship" on skin color? Or is skin color just as invalid as hair and eye color? In short if we rightly find hair and eye color to be suspect variables in terms of intelligence indicators, why do we not find groupings by skin color to be equally ridiculous.
What we're talking about, of course, is correlation, not causation.
And what Academicians love to do is gather vast amounts of data and look for correlation. The discovery of correlates provides the basis for New Papers...and New Papers drive the Professional Publication Paper Mills which, in turn, drive academic prestige and promotion.
So you're absolutely right. We could, as easily, discover correlation between IQ and hair color / eye color -- which, of course, we would as non-Black populations (which have, on average, a higher IQ standard) will equally contain a far greater blond/blue-eyed percentage composition. Equally, if we're desperate for a Paper to Publish, we might look for correlation between IQ scores and small town/urban core..... or athletically inclined or not athletically inclined... or Midwestern vs. Coastal.... or height... or weight.... or whether or not the populations have read 'Catcher in the Rye' (I suspect that, too, would correlate with IQ).
In the end, as you noted, the results would all be equally ridiculous because they all they can ever do is point towards correlates....like this one, between BA's in Psych & Groundkeepers in Utah: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
And all that underlines why it's just plain silly to worry about correlation on something as vague as all this.
The genetic arguments for innate diferences in abilities are based on isolation of populations over periods of time that are long enough to result in evolutionary changes within the isolated populations. Skin color, hair color, and other superficial characteristics aren't important except as signs of differences that emerged in isolated populations. Isolation increases differences between groups.
How does one pick which superficial characteristic represents the variable of the group? To say that skin color can best be the variable over an entire continent the size of Africa seems questionable. Did East Africans have bigger foreheads -- as Germans in the 19th century focused on skull and nose size. Do Ethiopians then represent an isolated population instead of the entire continent that has black skin? If so should these variables such as forehead size be viewed as more suitable grouping than skin color which seems to have dominated the "race" variable but with very questionable foundations, such as the overwhelming size of Africa and the different isolated groups within the continent. If one finds any value in this kind of examination.
Some of your questions are best addressed to an evolutionary biologist or geneticist. My very limited understanding is that the DNA of African people is "more diverse" because of its age in evolutionary terms. My understanding of what this means technically is that the differences between members of one ethnicity might be greater than the differences between the groups. I think that the original Australian population may have been one of the most isolated human groups, whereas some interaction went on among the peoples of Africa. The skin color, eye color and hair texture are expressions of genes that were selected through survival and reproduction. So, I guess that the short answer to your question is that the amount and kind of DNA that is shared determines whether one is more related to another person or population group. Again, this is a relatively uninformed opinion about the biology and evolution of "race" in humans.
When I was a graduate student (in the 1970’s) on Friday mornings I used to play basketball with a group of grad students most of whom were also studying economics. There was a girl who often played with us who was studying anthropology. At some point she disappeared because she had gone to New Guinea to do doctoral research. When she came back she had scars of some sort on her face. (I don’t remember what they looked like, just that they changed a pretty face to one covered with scars.). She told me that she accidentally walked into a poisonous plant. The ethnic group she was studying and residing with did not think to tell her to avoid the plant because everyone knew it was dangerous.
I have always thought about this story because it seems to me that the types of tests that are given (at least the ones I am familiar with) that measure intelligence ( such as the ACT and SAT) have a large cultural dimension particularly when they use verbal analogies that involve words with Greek roots. I remember taking the verbal SAT and GRE not knowing the meanings of most words in the analogy parts of the test.
So, my insight (or lack thereof) is this: IQ tests and standardized tests are measuring knowledge or academic skills that the test designer deems necessary for one to be academically successful. I think these tests do a good job at that.
But whether they really measure intelligence (at other than the genius level) is another question.
And if there is a disparity across demographic groups that is deemed a problem, the solution is for schools to impose higher academic standards on their students whether or not they are deemed to be college bound. The nature of such higher standards should vary from person to person.
SAT and ACT are not IQ tests. Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are the most common IQ tests- they do not measure knowledge nor do they have a cultural dimension.
I've read that the SAT is fairly g-loaded, so I'm not sure that your claim about the SAT not being an IQ test is necessarily accurate. Although to be fair recent revisions of the SAT have watered it down somewhat.
The SAT doesn't measure IQ, it measures knowledge and skills. If it were an IQ test it would be marketed and described as such and those who took the test would be given an IQ score. The College Board sells the SAT and does not claim it's an IQ test. You want to claim it is- take it up with the College Board.
"Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests—so highly that the Harvard education scholar Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, once called the SAT and other scholastic measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests."
"Furthermore, the SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching or practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small — on average, no more than about 20 points per section."
Regardless of how the College Board markets the SAT and whether or not its detractors perceive that it has value, the evidence that the SAT is fairly g-loaded and correlated with more traditional measures of IQ is pretty well established from what I understand.
People who have been tested with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale get an official IQ score. The PSAT, SAT, GRE, Miller Analogy Test (retired from professional use), all can be used to estimate IQ quite well. People who have taken the above list of tests can find IQ estimate tables on various sites online. In my case, the predicted scores from the second group of tests were all very close my WAIS score, with most tests in the group estimating an IQ score about 5 points higher than my WAIS score.
In echoing commenter Tom, I would just point that generally speaking the observed gap between Blacks and non-Blacks tends to be higher on tests of non-verbal as opposed to verbal reasoning. Blacks do relatively better on the more culturally loaded tests of aptitude.
We might as well say that Brezelnubbs have no moral authority to speak on race.
But that, of course, would force us to begin by asking, "What's a Brezelnubb?" Followed, of course, by the question: What is moral authority? How does on acquire it? How do we know when we have it? And why does one need 'moral authority' (whatever that is) to speak on race...or to speak on anything, for that matter?
Certainly it would be reasonable to argue that anyone who has a race...is a part of a race....or recognized as being a member of a race....can speak on race. Nor does it require 'moral authority' to do so...anymore than it would require moral authority (whatever that is) to speak on football or tall people or chocolate cake.
From there we'd need to define a so-called 'Conservative Policy' in order to determine whether or not a Conservative policy benefitted the so-called 'Black Community'. And what does it mean to 'benefit the Black Community' anyway?
Do high academic standards benefit the Black Community? I would think so...just as they benefit everyone. We want our Cardiologists to be expert Cardiologists ...and not Cardiologists who graduated when the standards were relaxed or eliminated wouldn't we? And isn't 'high academic standards' a 'Conservative' principle....along with individual freedom, the rule of law, limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc? Do you refuse all of them...and any policies designed to advance such principles...do none of these 'benefit the Black Community'?
Are we to assume from your litany of 'Black Measures' that the only thing that matters to you, or the country as a whole is what is happening in the Black Community? The fact that "The lowest recorded poverty rate in the United States since the Census Bureau began tracking it in 1959 was 10.5% in 2019', during Trump.... that is not as important as the fact that the Black poverty rate didn't drop to it's lowest point for another 12 months or so? Doesn't that kind of monomaniacal focus seem the least bit racist to you?
As for the Fearless Fund --- 'women of color investing in women-of-color led businesses' -- isn't that, by definition both sexist AND racist? How would feel about a Fearless Fund which was built by White Men, intended for White Men Only? As a matter of fact, isn't such a thing illegal and unconstitutional?
High academic standards and academic achievement was celebrated at HBCUs and multiple other colleges and universities. The students at Morehouse were not going to disrupt graduation ceremonies out of respect for the families and friends of the graduates who cherish academic achievement.
My response to your post is necessarily limited as much of your response comes across as gibberish.
Well great! So HBCU's and multiple other colleges and universities celebrate Conservative Principles and all the policies thereby derived! That's excellent news; glad to hear you acknowledge that.
But too bad you can't answer the very questions you raised: What is 'moral authority'? How does one acquire it? Who gives it? How do we know when we have it?
What does this undefined 'moral authority' have to do with discussions of race? Would not having a race, or being a member of a race qualify one to speak of that very thing? And wouldn't it be possible to speak of "X" (whatever that may be) without having either so-called 'moral authority' or being a member of 'X'? (As in an Epidemiologist speaking of epidemics without actually being an Epidemic?)
And is not Conservative Policy derived from Conservative Principles, like those I named? And would you not endorse those same principles for Black and White alike (of course that would make you a Conservative)?
And let's not forget your Fearless Fund which is, as noted, 'women of color investing in women-of-color led businesses'. How would you about a Fearless Fund, built by White Men, intended only for White Men led businesses?
This is not gibberish, my friend, it's just a list of simple common sense questions directed at your blanket assertions. Surely you answer them?
That really was the best thing in that entire issue and why I was excited to see that Glenn Loury was on Twitter (and Substack). I have not forgotten the smug offhand racism of many of the other contributors.
Great piece, Glenn.
It is truly amusing to see Conservatives, the same group of people who bought “2000 Mules” and the Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd myth lock stock and barrel, argue in support of Charles Murray. Murray wrote a Conservative policy book and disguised it as science. There is a pretense that Stephen Gould, Thomas Sowell, and James R. Flynn never existed.
Formerly enslaved people built schools at a time when the Conservatives of the day were threatening any Black person seeking advancement. The Murray supporters of today are no different than the people who yelled Blacks could not be teachers, lawyers, or doctors. These folks also said Blacks were not intelligent enough to be quarterbacks or middle linebackers.
It is a waste of time to go on a snipe hunt with Conservatives regarding IQ.
Too quickly we react to what we fear is being said. We see things not as they are, but as we are sure, in our anger and anxiety, they must be. We rant & rave accordingly.
Some things, some issues, like those highlighted in "The Bell Curve" tend to inspire more than their fair share of rants & raves.
But let us take Glenn's in-passing summary of the work at face value...
He tells, approvingly, that “they (the authors) stress, plausibly enough, that we must be realistic in formulating policy (who would disagree?) taking due account of the unequal distribution of intellectual aptitudes in the population., recognizing that limitations of mental ability constrain what sorts of policies are likely to make a difference and how much of a difference they can make." So far so good. [Though we might still question how often, and in what circumstance a citizen's so-called mental ability is actually critical to any sort of government policy. But let us put that to the side for now.]
He goes on to say that "implicit in their argument is the judgement that we shall have to get used to there being a substantial minority of our fellows who, because of their low intelligence, may fail to perform adequately in their roles as workers, parents, and citizens." Glenn tells us he believes this is "quite wrong".
But why?
In fact, given normal demographic distribution patterns, there will always be those among us who are taller...and equally who are shorter. There will always be those who are fatter, and skinnier....faster & slower, et al. Why would we think that intelligence is any different when the world tells us over and over again: it isn’t?
In any given normal demographic distribution there will be those who really, really good at math...and those who are not. Those who can read & comprehend like a whirlwind...and those who struggle to complete a paragraph. There will be those who can write...who can sing...who can read music....who can draw & paint...who can see patterns & understand connections far better than the rest. Over and over again we see that same Great to Poor distribution of cognitive abilities....and an accompanying Great to Poor distribution of performance.
How is that ‘quite wrong’?
Nor is it wrong to believe that EVERY normal distribution of EVERY population will always show this same range of abilities even as the entire population is replaced, generation, after generation, after generation. Indeed, we have the ‘poor’ with us always. Nor will that change, just as the basic nature of Man does not change.
We must also recognize the authors’ use of the word “MAY”....as in “because of their low intelligence MAY fail to perform adequately.” How could this be untrue? In fact, we MAY also find those of high intelligence (as measured in two-dimensional IQ tests) who ‘fail to perform adequately’. But that we find these instances of ‘poorer performance’ to be more common at the lower end of an IQ score range cannot be surprising.
It is not the fact of the research presented by Murray & Herrnstein which is the problem, but the direct, causal implications of same.
IQ scores in the lower quartile do not cause crime. If low-range IQ’s were a primary cause of criminal / sociopathic behavior then the 6.5M people, here in the United States who suffer from some form of significant cognitive impairment (intellectual disability) would all be criminals. They are not. I would suspect that hardly any are.
Criminality is not caused by low IQ; neither is it caused by economic status. Crimes are committed not by faceless social forces, or categories, but by people who have decided consciously, and with malice aforethought, to break the law and hurt another human being (physically, economically, socially). The issue with sociopathic behavior is not IQ but Morality. Knowing the difference between right & wrong, good & bad, has nothing to do with one’s reasoning ability or command of logic and everything to do with one’s spiritual sensibility & human empathy, as engendered by Church, family, and community.
One’s ability to do a job, on the other hand, and do a job well...even to the point of performing above standard is very definitely related to IQ....which very definitely measures the individual’s ability to quickly comprehend and resolve conceptual problems. As Murray & Herrnstein put it, “There are better and worse ditch diggers and garbage collectors.” And there is a premium paid to those who are better because society benefits from Better.
The problem is not that there will always be some portion of any human population which will consistently score in the bottom quartile of IQ testing. And the problem is not that this lower IQ group will tend to perform more poorly on the tasks society sets before them. We accept both of those truths. The problem is that, today, that lower quartile tends to be disproportionately Black. And that means that this normal, accepted, fact of IQ distribution & associated economic/social performance (from high to low) across any given population can become....will become.... a racial category issue...when it is more truly, simply a human issue.
But we forget....
Too easily we forget that Population Groups don’t apply for jobs, people do. Demographic categories are not responsible for task performance, individuals are. So the fact that IQ is distributed across the population in a bell-shaped curve is meaningless. The fact that ability, drive, ambition, talent, skill...that all these qualities are distributed across any given population, from high to low, from great to poor...is meaningless. No one really should care about Group Averages because no one IS that group. Rather we are individuals, measured as individuals, given opportunities as individuals ...who will rise or fall, as individuals.
We are responsible for ourselves. What happens to category averages does not happen to us.
Glenn’s life of accomplishment is his, not any of the categories he represents (Black, Midwesterner, Chicago native, Junior College grad, math major, MIT doctorate, divorced dad, arthritis sufferer).
To treat people as Category Reps and design policies accordingly is to dehumanize them.
As Justice Roberts quite plainly said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’ Equally the way to stop worrying about group averages is to stop worrying about them...to stop identifying with them. I am not / you are not The Group.
The Blind Spot is the one that prevents us from seeing that.
Science can help you build a nuclear arsenal. Science can't determine where or when to use it. Or even if.
When I was young, I got the idea that I could run track in high school. I decided I would run the mile. All I needed was mental toughness. While I could run only an average 100-yard dash, I reckoned if I put 18 of those together, I would be a very good miler.
I quickly learned mental toughness wasn't enough. You break down physically. The oxygen doesn't make it to your leg muscles fast enough. It didn't take Einstein to predict that, but I really wanted to be on the track team.
Marathoners have polygenic patterns that correlate with endurance. Some of the kids at my school had genomes more in line with the marathoners than I did. Those kids didn't need mental toughness or drive or discipline to run circles around me.
I would have been doomed to a life of misery if someone had pushed me to make long-distance running the centerpiece of my life. Some people are tall, some are less so. Some are attractive, some are less so. Some people are smart, some people are less so. Some process oxygen super efficiently, some don't. Identify your strengths and do the best you can. There are a million paths to contentment.
A greyhound is going to be miserable if you make him jump in icy water and retrieve ducks. A Labrador retriever will go hungry trying to chase down rabbits in an open field. We need to stop trying to pound square pegs into round holes -- no matter how useful it might be politically.
Glenn's prejudice in regard to the reality of intelligence quotients, averaged out in groups, is a delusional dishonesty. What exactly does Glenn mean when he says "Treating such matters of the human spirit as mere epiphenomena of material social processes betrays a kind of disciplinary arrogance. It risks opening the door to an unjustified pessimism about the future of human development." What absolute piffle. Glenn is more intelligent than I am, but so what? I am more intelligent than someone else, so what? Glenn has no solution and restating the obvious is tedious. Glenn wants the world to somehow ignore what it already knows. If Glenn is suggesting that cruel misuse of this fact-of-life, is inapproptiate, then I agree. Acknowledge the unpalatable facts and then leave the scrab alone.
Thomas Sowell, as I recall, liked to point out that differences across groups are very small compared to the differences within any group. In most cases the information one can derive about an individual based on his own achievements outweighs the information based on the average of whatever demographic group he might be a member of. I think what motivates Glenn is the desire to be judged on his own merits rather than on a meaningless demographic average. Knowing how the average academic ability of Black Americans compares with that of white Americans provides us with no information about how my academic ability compares with Glenn or John’s. Indeed, it is completely misleading.
The point is to design a society in which anyone, regardless of race or intelligence, can have a rich and fulfilling life as long as they work hard and play by the rules. Like this one for example: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
My observation of humanity brings me to the conclusion that genes have a small part in intelligence, with culture the greater factor. I remember watching a documentary several decades back where an Australian anthropologist studying Aboriginal culture created an "IQ" test around pattern recognition. She then gave this test to Aboriginal children and non-Aboriginal children. If one has ever looked at Aboriginal art, there's no surprise who scored well. But we're not in outback Australia and we have to survive in our culture. Different skills are needed, and I believe innate intelligence is evenly distributed across all populations, but it must be developed. If I remember correctly, Murray and Bell lumped Europeans together into one result. I later looked up the average IQ scores by individual country and there was some significant variation in my opinion. The same happened when I looked at Asia and Africa. Then there was "The German Story" on page 310, where the illegitimate children of German women and American servicemen were tested and there was no significant IQ difference between the 264 children fathered by black Americans, and 83 children fathered by white serviceman. They go on to say that since the IQ's of the fathers were not known, selection could not be ruled out. They seem to be suggesting the young German women were going around looking for IQ during the Occupation. Women are not any better than men at mate selection and I find their IQ selection suggestion quite funny. The environmental factors that Murray and Bell considered did not include exposure to pollution. I also don't remember them comparing performance in single-sex vs co-ed schools. My own 63 years as a female has shown me males will almost always perform better when trying to top the performance of females. In families and cultures where there is a history of cultivating academic performance, people will perform better, and I can tell you this as a small farmer, cultivation takes time and successive generations.
In the second paragraph of his essay, Glenn talks about "formulating policy, taking due account of the unequal distribution of intellectual aptitudes in the population."
If we want to apply such policies, we don't need to use crude eligibility tests like holding up one of the skin-tone cards from the internet memes to each applicant's face. Instead, we can give applicants a test that individually measures their aptitude for whatever it is the policy targets.
That has been the standard method for assessing intellectual ability, which has recently been discarded, but is now being resurrected at a few schools. Are you talking about testing people's aptitude to perform specific jobs? There is a bunch of research showing that the best predictors of job performance are tests that require potential trainees and employees to perform the skills they will need to do the job. Nevertheless, this type of testing is not done as often as it should be.
I meant my comment to be unspecific. I agree with you that there is a place for job testing.
But equally, we need to drop the naive assumption that any unevenness in the pigmentation of the various achievement levels is necessarily evidence of discrimination and oppression.
This an extremely interesting subject for me. Hope you pursue this topic further. I’d like to see you and John host a debate between Sowell and Murray.
I wonder how our hunter-gatherer ancestors handled low IQ members of the group. My guess is that natural selection selected for high IQ among other desirable traits.
Probably so, but people with average IQ's can have non-intellectual talents. Good trackers need abilities which many other species of predators also have. Ability to tan hides and turn them into clothing requires manual dexterity and innate talent in designing and fitting clothes.
Yes. These abilities and skills come under “other desirable traits”. Many high IQ people lack social and other desirable skills/traits that limit their function in society. To be a valued member of society doesn’t require a high IQ.
The data and analysis in The Bell Curve is very impressive and not easily dismissed. It seems likely to me that the abilities being measured by the usual intelligence tests are real. There is a big part of those tests, however, that measures the person's "fund of information," which very probably varies with how widely read the person is, and that is in turn a function of other cultural variables.
I think that "success," especially financial success has more to do with what vocational paths people choose. One reason (but not the only one) why employed women earn less than employed men is that the work that interests more women than men tends to be less well paid. Work involving "service to others," especially kids, for example, tends to be underpaid. The same is true for traditional visual arts, such as painting and photography. Jobs that have paid well for men are not all knowledge based: contracting and self employment in small but growing businesses are examples.
This is a capitalist system pattern that is not necessarily related to supply and demand, but more to other factors. These factors include cultural valuation of certain kinds of work over others, and certainly also biases. Women have historically been expected to provide all of the childcare, nursing of the ill and dying, and so on, for free. The national loss of manufacturing jobs has been devastating for men and their families, as many of these jobs paid enough for families to live on one income.
With regard to the performance of black kids and adults, I always return to the fact that if kids are not consistently attending school, and not receiving enough support for academic achievement in their homes and neighborhoods, they will not perform anywhere near their capacities. And this is clearly the case, so the emphasis should be on motivation and what it takes to increase it.
Roland Fryer did a study that pretty convincingly (to me at least) shows that academic achievement and capacity gaps can be bridged pretty thoroughly if lower-achieving populations (1) spend more time in school than higher-achieving cohorts, (2) are provided intensive individualized or small-group tutoring, (3) are protected from disorder and interruption in the learning environment, and (4) have their progress routinely monitored to ensure the effectiveness of the curriculum.
It would be wonderful if those things could happen! I think that the element of individual attention might be important for more than academic reasons. Kids from single parent homes, with the parent employed full time, often need more individual attention than they are getting. Kids need to be able to believe in themselves and need to be able to imagine positive future possibilities. Boys need positive, caring male role models as well.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century German "academics" had a far greater amount of "scholarship" on the German, Aryan and other "races." Is that scholarship any less valid than any scholarship on "race" as skin color? If not less valid, why have scholars not studied IQ based on hair color and eye color groups? I don't ask this cynically. Is German scholarship on Aryan blonde hair and blue eyes less valid than "scholarship" on skin color? Or is skin color just as invalid as hair and eye color? In short if we rightly find hair and eye color to be suspect variables in terms of intelligence indicators, why do we not find groupings by skin color to be equally ridiculous.
What we're talking about, of course, is correlation, not causation.
And what Academicians love to do is gather vast amounts of data and look for correlation. The discovery of correlates provides the basis for New Papers...and New Papers drive the Professional Publication Paper Mills which, in turn, drive academic prestige and promotion.
So you're absolutely right. We could, as easily, discover correlation between IQ and hair color / eye color -- which, of course, we would as non-Black populations (which have, on average, a higher IQ standard) will equally contain a far greater blond/blue-eyed percentage composition. Equally, if we're desperate for a Paper to Publish, we might look for correlation between IQ scores and small town/urban core..... or athletically inclined or not athletically inclined... or Midwestern vs. Coastal.... or height... or weight.... or whether or not the populations have read 'Catcher in the Rye' (I suspect that, too, would correlate with IQ).
In the end, as you noted, the results would all be equally ridiculous because they all they can ever do is point towards correlates....like this one, between BA's in Psych & Groundkeepers in Utah: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
And all that underlines why it's just plain silly to worry about correlation on something as vague as all this.
The genetic arguments for innate diferences in abilities are based on isolation of populations over periods of time that are long enough to result in evolutionary changes within the isolated populations. Skin color, hair color, and other superficial characteristics aren't important except as signs of differences that emerged in isolated populations. Isolation increases differences between groups.
How does one pick which superficial characteristic represents the variable of the group? To say that skin color can best be the variable over an entire continent the size of Africa seems questionable. Did East Africans have bigger foreheads -- as Germans in the 19th century focused on skull and nose size. Do Ethiopians then represent an isolated population instead of the entire continent that has black skin? If so should these variables such as forehead size be viewed as more suitable grouping than skin color which seems to have dominated the "race" variable but with very questionable foundations, such as the overwhelming size of Africa and the different isolated groups within the continent. If one finds any value in this kind of examination.
Some of your questions are best addressed to an evolutionary biologist or geneticist. My very limited understanding is that the DNA of African people is "more diverse" because of its age in evolutionary terms. My understanding of what this means technically is that the differences between members of one ethnicity might be greater than the differences between the groups. I think that the original Australian population may have been one of the most isolated human groups, whereas some interaction went on among the peoples of Africa. The skin color, eye color and hair texture are expressions of genes that were selected through survival and reproduction. So, I guess that the short answer to your question is that the amount and kind of DNA that is shared determines whether one is more related to another person or population group. Again, this is a relatively uninformed opinion about the biology and evolution of "race" in humans.
When I was a graduate student (in the 1970’s) on Friday mornings I used to play basketball with a group of grad students most of whom were also studying economics. There was a girl who often played with us who was studying anthropology. At some point she disappeared because she had gone to New Guinea to do doctoral research. When she came back she had scars of some sort on her face. (I don’t remember what they looked like, just that they changed a pretty face to one covered with scars.). She told me that she accidentally walked into a poisonous plant. The ethnic group she was studying and residing with did not think to tell her to avoid the plant because everyone knew it was dangerous.
I have always thought about this story because it seems to me that the types of tests that are given (at least the ones I am familiar with) that measure intelligence ( such as the ACT and SAT) have a large cultural dimension particularly when they use verbal analogies that involve words with Greek roots. I remember taking the verbal SAT and GRE not knowing the meanings of most words in the analogy parts of the test.
So, my insight (or lack thereof) is this: IQ tests and standardized tests are measuring knowledge or academic skills that the test designer deems necessary for one to be academically successful. I think these tests do a good job at that.
But whether they really measure intelligence (at other than the genius level) is another question.
And if there is a disparity across demographic groups that is deemed a problem, the solution is for schools to impose higher academic standards on their students whether or not they are deemed to be college bound. The nature of such higher standards should vary from person to person.
SAT and ACT are not IQ tests. Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are the most common IQ tests- they do not measure knowledge nor do they have a cultural dimension.
I've read that the SAT is fairly g-loaded, so I'm not sure that your claim about the SAT not being an IQ test is necessarily accurate. Although to be fair recent revisions of the SAT have watered it down somewhat.
The SAT doesn't measure IQ, it measures knowledge and skills. If it were an IQ test it would be marketed and described as such and those who took the test would be given an IQ score. The College Board sells the SAT and does not claim it's an IQ test. You want to claim it is- take it up with the College Board.
"Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests—so highly that the Harvard education scholar Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, once called the SAT and other scholastic measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests."
https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/what-do-sat-and-iq-tests-measure-general-intelligence-predicts-school-and-life-success.html
"Furthermore, the SAT is largely a measure of general intelligence. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on standardized tests of intelligence, and like IQ scores, are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching or practice. SAT preparation courses appear to work, but the gains are small — on average, no more than about 20 points per section."
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/04/why-should-sats-matter/the-sat-is-a-good-intelligence-test
Regardless of how the College Board markets the SAT and whether or not its detractors perceive that it has value, the evidence that the SAT is fairly g-loaded and correlated with more traditional measures of IQ is pretty well established from what I understand.
People who have been tested with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale get an official IQ score. The PSAT, SAT, GRE, Miller Analogy Test (retired from professional use), all can be used to estimate IQ quite well. People who have taken the above list of tests can find IQ estimate tables on various sites online. In my case, the predicted scores from the second group of tests were all very close my WAIS score, with most tests in the group estimating an IQ score about 5 points higher than my WAIS score.
Yes it correlates. Success in life also correlates with IQ.
In echoing commenter Tom, I would just point that generally speaking the observed gap between Blacks and non-Blacks tends to be higher on tests of non-verbal as opposed to verbal reasoning. Blacks do relatively better on the more culturally loaded tests of aptitude.
There are non-verbal IQ tests. Hard to see how these are influenced by culture or knowledge. Experience with this sort of test might be helpful.
Conservatives have zero moral authority to speak on race
Charles Murray was celebrated by Conservative icons like William F Buckley
Conservative Republican icon Ronald Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi
Byron Donalds reflects on Jim Crow when discussing Black marriage
Conservatives attack the Fearless Fund
Felon Donald J Trump criticizes Black Mayors
Conservative policy has nothing to offer the Black community.
Does anyone other than God have moral authority? Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone.
So, we are in agreement that Conservatives have no moral authority to speak on race.
I provided examples and ended wit the observation of the absence of Conservative policies that benefited the Black community.
Edit to add:
The lowest Black unemployment rate happened under Biden/Harris
The lowest Black poverty was since the 1950s is under Biden/Harris
Highest Black home ownership was under Bill Clinton
HBCU funding is higher under Biden/Harris.
We might as well say that Brezelnubbs have no moral authority to speak on race.
But that, of course, would force us to begin by asking, "What's a Brezelnubb?" Followed, of course, by the question: What is moral authority? How does on acquire it? How do we know when we have it? And why does one need 'moral authority' (whatever that is) to speak on race...or to speak on anything, for that matter?
Certainly it would be reasonable to argue that anyone who has a race...is a part of a race....or recognized as being a member of a race....can speak on race. Nor does it require 'moral authority' to do so...anymore than it would require moral authority (whatever that is) to speak on football or tall people or chocolate cake.
From there we'd need to define a so-called 'Conservative Policy' in order to determine whether or not a Conservative policy benefitted the so-called 'Black Community'. And what does it mean to 'benefit the Black Community' anyway?
Do high academic standards benefit the Black Community? I would think so...just as they benefit everyone. We want our Cardiologists to be expert Cardiologists ...and not Cardiologists who graduated when the standards were relaxed or eliminated wouldn't we? And isn't 'high academic standards' a 'Conservative' principle....along with individual freedom, the rule of law, limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc? Do you refuse all of them...and any policies designed to advance such principles...do none of these 'benefit the Black Community'?
Are we to assume from your litany of 'Black Measures' that the only thing that matters to you, or the country as a whole is what is happening in the Black Community? The fact that "The lowest recorded poverty rate in the United States since the Census Bureau began tracking it in 1959 was 10.5% in 2019', during Trump.... that is not as important as the fact that the Black poverty rate didn't drop to it's lowest point for another 12 months or so? Doesn't that kind of monomaniacal focus seem the least bit racist to you?
As for the Fearless Fund --- 'women of color investing in women-of-color led businesses' -- isn't that, by definition both sexist AND racist? How would feel about a Fearless Fund which was built by White Men, intended for White Men Only? As a matter of fact, isn't such a thing illegal and unconstitutional?
High academic standards and academic achievement was celebrated at HBCUs and multiple other colleges and universities. The students at Morehouse were not going to disrupt graduation ceremonies out of respect for the families and friends of the graduates who cherish academic achievement.
My response to your post is necessarily limited as much of your response comes across as gibberish.
Well great! So HBCU's and multiple other colleges and universities celebrate Conservative Principles and all the policies thereby derived! That's excellent news; glad to hear you acknowledge that.
But too bad you can't answer the very questions you raised: What is 'moral authority'? How does one acquire it? Who gives it? How do we know when we have it?
What does this undefined 'moral authority' have to do with discussions of race? Would not having a race, or being a member of a race qualify one to speak of that very thing? And wouldn't it be possible to speak of "X" (whatever that may be) without having either so-called 'moral authority' or being a member of 'X'? (As in an Epidemiologist speaking of epidemics without actually being an Epidemic?)
And is not Conservative Policy derived from Conservative Principles, like those I named? And would you not endorse those same principles for Black and White alike (of course that would make you a Conservative)?
And let's not forget your Fearless Fund which is, as noted, 'women of color investing in women-of-color led businesses'. How would you about a Fearless Fund, built by White Men, intended only for White Men led businesses?
This is not gibberish, my friend, it's just a list of simple common sense questions directed at your blanket assertions. Surely you answer them?
Excellent analysis of a complex, important subject.
That really was the best thing in that entire issue and why I was excited to see that Glenn Loury was on Twitter (and Substack). I have not forgotten the smug offhand racism of many of the other contributors.