5 ms·

The second sentence is a straw man. Skimming the text, I see that's much the case throughout. Gladwell, if you look past his charming style, is extremely slop

The second sentence is a straw man. Skimming the text, I see that's much the case throughout. Gladwell, if you look past his charming style, is extremely sloppy. Everybody who has researched IQ has come across the twin studies which amply prove that IQ is not immutable. But the only one ignoring such studies is the actual "fundamentalists" who deny that genetics has anything at all to do with intelligence. The increase in IQ from nutrition and education is going to experience stark diminishing returns, as has already been seen. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ729986&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ729986 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordD...

tokenadult 17y ago
Everybody who has researched IQ has come across the twin studies which amply prove that IQ is not immutable. Yes, there are a number of lines of evidence that IQ is far from immutable at the individual level, even though environmental influences on IQ are very poorly understood. Because such environmental influences are poorly understood, it is not at all clear that societal increases in IQ can't continue. I've enjoyed hearing from several well known psychologists about this, including some of the doyens of twin research, as I participate in the journal club in individual differences psychology and behavioral genetics http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/default.htm http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau... at the university where those researchers are based this fall semester. There is always lively discussion on what the data show, and what the data don't show. Thus far, there are no data to show a hard upper limit on how much individual academic achievement might raise with the best interventions, nor any predictable limit on how much secular increases in societal levels of IQ might continue.
hughprime 17y ago
The second sentence is a straw man. Is there some kind of competition I don't know about to mention the words "straw man" in as many threads as possible? It seems to pop up in just about every thread, along with the words "correlation does not equal causation".
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- mediaman 17y ago
  Both logical weaknesses are common among arguments, and people here have a penchant for pointing them out. I'd rather they point it out than let poor arguments pass for lack of language to describe it. Maybe we need new synonyms. Says something about the state of logical strength of many popular articles, doesn't it?
- misuba 17y ago
  You see those a lot because they're two of the easiest forms of illogic to spot.
  - tpyo 17y ago
    I would consider straw men arguments more difficult to point out because you need to actually know about the subject to find them.
- dmoney 17y ago
  "straw man" is the new "disingenuous".
  - carbocation 17y ago
    When I see disingenuous, I assume that you're saying someone is pretending X, despite the fact that they know that X is false. That is, I more-or-less assume malice. When I see straw man, it often seems to be the case that the author didn't know any better. That is, I assume ignorance until proven otherwise.
adg 17y ago
You have to realize who Gladwell's audience is. I think you're severely underestimating the number of people who have done any research into IQ studies. Now, you could argue that he is not rigorous enough in his arguments, and while this is true, he's still exposing many people to new ideas that can help to reduce widespread misconceptions that the general public holds.
- jhancock 17y ago
  While I generally agree with you, on such a touchy subject as IQ and race, you do need to be a bit more careful with your words.
catzaa 17y ago
This whole article is a straw man. While differences between intelligence of races are debatable, the way the article goes about it is contentious and extremely one sided. A much more important argument is whether intelligence is immutable or not. What this article doesn’t do is look at the general intelligence factor – the correct way to measure intelligence. Attacking IQ is just a straw man – IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence, the g-factor is. IQ tests are subject to boosting (i.e. increased performance by training). The evidence that intelligence is innate is significant and mounting. The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable. It is possible to see the effects of the general intelligence factor by looking at fMRI when a person does a test. Intelligence has much more to do with physiology than anyone would like to admit. It is sad that a lot of people would rather turn science into pseudo science than to acknowledge the fact. These views are subject to a very good book called “The blank slate: modern denial of human nature” (by Steven Pinker). PS: James Flynn does not have any formal training in psychometrics. He is a political scientist and noted left wing New Zealand political activist. He is also author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity”. I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him. It is unfortunate that when science and politics collides it is science that loses.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable. Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please? I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him. Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Arthur Jensen, "Differential Psychology: Towards Consensus" in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy, Sohan Modgil & Celia Modgil ed., p. 379 (1987). N. J. Mackintosh 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." Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flynn grapples with the data, analyzes the data carefully, and engages in discussion with scholars from a wide variety of points of view about what the data mean. That's why Flynn's most recent book gains the praise http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865429 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865429 already mentioned in another reply to this thread. After edit: Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here. There is a crucial issue here to be curious about, and that is exactly what a calculation of broad heritability definitely predicts. It predicts a lot less than what many readers unfamiliar with genetics might guess. It happens that some of the leading authors on human behavioral genetics just wrote an article about what heritability does and does not mean Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 217-220. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cdir/2009/00000018/00000004/art00006 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cdir/2009/00000018... (one online abstract) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122587149/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122587149/abstrac... (the main link to the article) Alas, a peek behind the pay wall that was available a little while ago when I posted this article here on HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 is now dead. But I have the full text of the article at hand, as I am currently attending a weekly journal club with some of the authors, and one key paragraph from the article must be read by anyone who draws conclusions from heritablity figures: "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)." This simply reemphasizes a point that is familiar to anyone who has studied genetics carefully, namely that the pre-Mendelian concept of heritability says nothing about malleability, the degree to which a trait can be influenced by environmental variables. Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713-720. Mange, A. & Mange, E. J. (1990). Genetics: Human Aspects. Kaufman, Alan S. (1990). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence. So any statement in this thread that heritability somehow constrains the expression of g or of IQ is actually conceptually incorrect.
sethg 17y ago
Gladwell is not talking about the heritability of IQ on an individual basis; he's talking about IQ differences, or the lack thereof, between races. It's entirely possible that there is some factor of intelligence that is mostly inherited and that whites, blacks, Asians, etc., on average, possess equal amounts of this factor.

tokenadult 17y ago

Everybody who has researched IQ has come across the twin studies which amply prove that IQ is not immutable. Yes, there are a number of lines of evidence that IQ is far from immutable at the individual level, even though environmental influences on IQ are very poorly understood. Because such environmental influences are poorly understood, it is not at all clear that societal increases in IQ can't continue. I've enjoyed hearing from several well known psychologists about this, including some of the doyens of twin research, as I participate in the journal club in individual differences psychology and behavioral genetics http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/default.htm http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau... at the university where those researchers are based this fall semester. There is always lively discussion on what the data show, and what the data don't show. Thus far, there are no data to show a hard upper limit on how much individual academic achievement might raise with the best interventions, nor any predictable limit on how much secular increases in societal levels of IQ might continue.

hughprime 17y ago

The second sentence is a straw man. Is there some kind of competition I don't know about to mention the words "straw man" in as many threads as possible? It seems to pop up in just about every thread, along with the words "correlation does not equal causation".

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
mediaman 17y ago
Both logical weaknesses are common among arguments, and people here have a penchant for pointing them out. I'd rather they point it out than let poor arguments pass for lack of language to describe it. Maybe we need new synonyms. Says something about the state of logical strength of many popular articles, doesn't it?
misuba 17y ago
You see those a lot because they're two of the easiest forms of illogic to spot.
- tpyo 17y ago
  I would consider straw men arguments more difficult to point out because you need to actually know about the subject to find them.
dmoney 17y ago
"straw man" is the new "disingenuous".
- carbocation 17y ago
  When I see disingenuous, I assume that you're saying someone is pretending X, despite the fact that they know that X is false. That is, I more-or-less assume malice. When I see straw man, it often seems to be the case that the author didn't know any better. That is, I assume ignorance until proven otherwise.

adg 17y ago

You have to realize who Gladwell's audience is. I think you're severely underestimating the number of people who have done any research into IQ studies. Now, you could argue that he is not rigorous enough in his arguments, and while this is true, he's still exposing many people to new ideas that can help to reduce widespread misconceptions that the general public holds.

jhancock 17y ago
While I generally agree with you, on such a touchy subject as IQ and race, you do need to be a bit more careful with your words.

catzaa 17y ago

This whole article is a straw man. While differences between intelligence of races are debatable, the way the article goes about it is contentious and extremely one sided. A much more important argument is whether intelligence is immutable or not. What this article doesn’t do is look at the general intelligence factor – the correct way to measure intelligence. Attacking IQ is just a straw man – IQ isn’t the best measure of intelligence, the g-factor is. IQ tests are subject to boosting (i.e. increased performance by training). The evidence that intelligence is innate is significant and mounting. The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable. It is possible to see the effects of the general intelligence factor by looking at fMRI when a person does a test. Intelligence has much more to do with physiology than anyone would like to admit. It is sad that a lot of people would rather turn science into pseudo science than to acknowledge the fact. These views are subject to a very good book called “The blank slate: modern denial of human nature” (by Steven Pinker). PS: James Flynn does not have any formal training in psychometrics. He is a political scientist and noted left wing New Zealand political activist. He is also author of “How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity”. I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him. It is unfortunate that when science and politics collides it is science that loses.

tokenadult 17y ago
The general intelligence factor is found in several studies to be immutable. Studies get published if they survive peer review, and publications have citations. Citations, please? I do not know why his views are continuously brought up when there are 100s of guys in the field that is better educated than him. Because Flynn does his homework and makes unassailable research findings that are published in the best journals. Arthur Jensen has written, "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Arthur Jensen, "Differential Psychology: Towards Consensus" in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy, Sohan Modgil & Celia Modgil ed., p. 379 (1987). N. J. Mackintosh 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." Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flynn grapples with the data, analyzes the data carefully, and engages in discussion with scholars from a wide variety of points of view about what the data mean. That's why Flynn's most recent book gains the praise http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865429 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=865429 already mentioned in another reply to this thread. After edit: Because I have Pinker's book at hand, I checked his chapter on the issue, and Pinker says, "The Third Law: A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families." The environment in the world at large does matter, and it matters for a lot. Pinker is forced to acknowledge this because that is what the research shows. It is regrettable that Pinker fails to cite the articles that establish the difference between heritability and mutability ("malleability") directly in the text of his book, but I will cite those here. There is a crucial issue here to be curious about, and that is exactly what a calculation of broad heritability definitely predicts. It predicts a lot less than what many readers unfamiliar with genetics might guess. It happens that some of the leading authors on human behavioral genetics just wrote an article about what heritability does and does not mean Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I.; Bouchard Jr., Thomas (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4, 217-220. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cdir/2009/00000018/00000004/art00006 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cdir/2009/00000018... (one online abstract) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122587149/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122587149/abstrac... (the main link to the article) Alas, a peek behind the pay wall that was available a little while ago when I posted this article here on HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 is now dead. But I have the full text of the article at hand, as I am currently attending a weekly journal club with some of the authors, and one key paragraph from the article must be read by anyone who draws conclusions from heritablity figures: "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)." This simply reemphasizes a point that is familiar to anyone who has studied genetics carefully, namely that the pre-Mendelian concept of heritability says nothing about malleability, the degree to which a trait can be influenced by environmental variables. Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713-720. Mange, A. & Mange, E. J. (1990). Genetics: Human Aspects. Kaufman, Alan S. (1990). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence. So any statement in this thread that heritability somehow constrains the expression of g or of IQ is actually conceptually incorrect.

sethg 17y ago

Gladwell is not talking about the heritability of IQ on an individual basis; he's talking about IQ differences, or the lack thereof, between races. It's entirely possible that there is some factor of intelligence that is mostly inherited and that whites, blacks, Asians, etc., on average, possess equal amounts of this factor.