6 ms·

Should scientists study race and IQ?

23 points by kqr2 18y ago

awt 18y ago
Yes. One way to learn is to compare things to each other and find out why they are different. The answers are usually illuminating.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Understanding is also the first step to engineering. People talk about replacement organs, stem cells, and all sorts of enhancements. But intelligence enhancement could be so much more important. We get around with hacks like coffee, and could do much better. SBUX has a $7B market cap.
- Tangurena 18y ago
  I agree. Reality isn't what you want things to be. Reality isn't what I want things to be. Reality is what is.
  - kurtosis 18y ago
    Someone wise once said: "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
    - josefresco 18y ago
      I have to disagree with you both (although both statements are well put) ... Reality is what is, based on our current understanding. Many realities have changed over time, as our society progresses and evolves into a higher understanding.
      - endtime 18y ago
        I think you're mixing up reality with our perception thereof. Reality is not dependent on what we think, except the part of reality concerned with our brain states. That said, of course reality changes, if it didn't we kind of wouldn't have time. (I'm sure Stephen Hawking could put it more eloquently than that.)
jeremyw 18y ago
Hear, hear. A courageous article. How often journals such as Science or popular outlets as Scientific American permit themselves creeping or outright ad-hominemisms. Recapture politics to fortify the scientific method: publish all data and source code, publish negative results, aid higher rates of experiment replication and competitive epidemiological studies.
gjm11 18y ago
The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries do correlate well with is sharp social differences, and therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2) acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1. On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1. So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light. And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)
- ars 18y ago
  "The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically" People say that a lot - but it's not actually true. Do you think it's socially important for people to believe that, and to blind themself to differences? Fine, I can accept that. But do not delude yourself into thinking it's actually true.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
  - Retric 18y ago
    One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.
pchristensen 18y ago
There has to be willingness to get things wrong if there's going to be any progress. If the fear of getting wrong answers at first prevents research, then we'll never get the right answers.
tokenadult 18y ago
Scientists have studied race and IQ. The foremost scientist who has looked at the issue is James R. Flynn, who discovered an important phenomenon, increases in IQ scores over time, that had not been noticed by psychologists in data sets that Flynn reexamined. As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." His book, by the way, http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/019852367X/ http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/... is the best first book to read about IQ testing. The best second book to read about IQ testing is Flynn's latest book, http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/dp/0521880076/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/... and the best third book on IQ testing to read, after the other two books have given you a conceptual foundation, is Keith Stanovich's latest. http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... A more complete annotated bibliography http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html lists other books, not all from the same point of view.
amichail 18y ago
Research showing that group X is generally best at doing task Y will not be as helpful to society as a DNA test for identifying individual talent for task Y regardless of group. Of course, knowing which genes will help with task Y may tell you which group is best at task Y. But the reverse is not true and will likely cause discrimination and suboptimal outcomes.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  Even then, the DNA test is never going to be as effective as, well, a normal test. If you're looking for people who can run fast, line them up and run a race. No need to take DNA samples...
  - amichail 18y ago
    Speaking of running fast... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm
steveplace 18y ago
As long as you normalize for socioeconomic variables.
endtime 18y ago
If you say no, that means you value political correctness more highly than science. I find that a hard position to swallow.
bluishgreen 18y ago
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28
msie 18y ago
A recent scientific study concludes that 100% of all research is misreported or distorted when it reaches the general public.
azgolfer 18y ago
This seems like a pretty solid argument for a gender gap in math. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm

23 points by kqr2 18y ago

awt 18y ago

Yes. One way to learn is to compare things to each other and find out why they are different. The answers are usually illuminating.

ivankirigin 18y ago
Understanding is also the first step to engineering. People talk about replacement organs, stem cells, and all sorts of enhancements. But intelligence enhancement could be so much more important. We get around with hacks like coffee, and could do much better. SBUX has a $7B market cap.
Tangurena 18y ago
I agree. Reality isn't what you want things to be. Reality isn't what I want things to be. Reality is what is.
- kurtosis 18y ago
  Someone wise once said: "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
  - josefresco 18y ago
    I have to disagree with you both (although both statements are well put) ... Reality is what is, based on our current understanding. Many realities have changed over time, as our society progresses and evolves into a higher understanding.
    - endtime 18y ago
      I think you're mixing up reality with our perception thereof. Reality is not dependent on what we think, except the part of reality concerned with our brain states. That said, of course reality changes, if it didn't we kind of wouldn't have time. (I'm sure Stephen Hawking could put it more eloquently than that.)

jeremyw 18y ago

Hear, hear. A courageous article. How often journals such as Science or popular outlets as Scientific American permit themselves creeping or outright ad-hominemisms. Recapture politics to fortify the scientific method: publish all data and source code, publish negative results, aid higher rates of experiment replication and competitive epidemiological studies.

gjm11 18y ago

The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries do correlate well with is sharp social differences, and therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2) acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1. On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1. So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light. And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)

ars 18y ago
"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically" People say that a lot - but it's not actually true. Do you think it's socially important for people to believe that, and to blind themself to differences? Fine, I can accept that. But do not delude yourself into thinking it's actually true.
byrneseyeview 18y ago
The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
- Retric 18y ago
  One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.

pchristensen 18y ago

There has to be willingness to get things wrong if there's going to be any progress. If the fear of getting wrong answers at first prevents research, then we'll never get the right answers.

tokenadult 18y ago

Scientists have studied race and IQ. The foremost scientist who has looked at the issue is James R. Flynn, who discovered an important phenomenon, increases in IQ scores over time, that had not been noticed by psychologists in data sets that Flynn reexamined. As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." His book, by the way, http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/019852367X/ http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intelligence-N-Mackintosh/dp/... is the best first book to read about IQ testing. The best second book to read about IQ testing is Flynn's latest book, http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/dp/0521880076/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/... and the best third book on IQ testing to read, after the other two books have given you a conceptual foundation, is Keith Stanovich's latest. http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... A more complete annotated bibliography http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html lists other books, not all from the same point of view.

amichail 18y ago

Research showing that group X is generally best at doing task Y will not be as helpful to society as a DNA test for identifying individual talent for task Y regardless of group. Of course, knowing which genes will help with task Y may tell you which group is best at task Y. But the reverse is not true and will likely cause discrimination and suboptimal outcomes.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Even then, the DNA test is never going to be as effective as, well, a normal test. If you're looking for people who can run fast, line them up and run a race. No need to take DNA samples...
- amichail 18y ago
  Speaking of running fast... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4314209.stm

steveplace 18y ago

As long as you normalize for socioeconomic variables.

endtime 18y ago

If you say no, that means you value political correctness more highly than science. I find that a hard position to swallow.

bluishgreen 18y ago

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/28

msie 18y ago

A recent scientific study concludes that 100% of all research is misreported or distorted when it reaches the general public.

azgolfer 18y ago

This seems like a pretty solid argument for a gender gap in math. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm