Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 34

3 year olds and possible bias
[This seemed to be rushed to a archive before a long discussion, so I have moved it back]

"Responding to such concerns, Dickens and Flynn 2001 have proposed a solution which rests on genotype-environment correlation, hypothesizing that small initial differences in environment cause feedback effects which magnify into large IQ differences.[73] Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected."

1) I think the 3-year olds IQ difference (reading the Flynn article) is a controversial result.

2) you cannot use a controversial result to make factual statement like : "Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected."

3) where is the citation for this statement: 'Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected.'

The 3-years olds issue feels to me like 'weasel-words'. How many large scale studies have been made on 3-year olds? Taking controversial studies on 3-year olds and then applying their results as truth to other parts of the article. Macgruder 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the 3-year-old results were debated. Interesting. That being said, the sentence you point to indeed needs a source, otherwise that line of argument is indeed a clear example of Original Research (independently of whether Peoples et al. or Dickens and Flynn are right or not.) Arbor 12:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it! Rushton–Jensen make exactly this point in their PPP survey (p. 270). Peer-reviewed and all. Should be kosher for WP. Arbor 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What was the sample size? I still can't find the link. I still don't agree that you can make that statement "Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected." If such a conclusion can be drawn, cite the research who made it. Macgruder 10:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument appears on page 270 of Rushton and Jensen's survey Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, PPPL 2005, linked in full from this article under Survey papers. The reference for the result about 3-year olds is, I would guess, Peoples-Fagan-Drotar, 1995 (to which I do not have access). It sounds as if you suggest that we as WP editors evaluate that research (based on its sample size, for example) and let that influence our presentation of the argument in question. Note that we cannot do that—even if you and I agreed that PFD is utter nonsense (and it may well be), and the RJ argument thereby invalidated, we could not write that. Instead, it would be more productive to find another reference that makes such an argument for us. The Rushton-Jensen paper was published together with a number of articles in which critics were asked to comment on that paper—I believe that those articles would be the best place to look for criticisms of the arguments expressed in that journal. Arbor 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "...Note that we cannot do that". Exactly, and you cannot make the statement "Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected" either. Macgruder 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I didn't make the argument. (I didn't put it in the article either.) The argument is from Rushton and Jensen. It's not original research. So we can make that argument, right? It just needs a source. You asked for one. I gave it. Arbor 11:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You gave the source for the result that 3-years old IQ result. I don't see the source for the next statement. "Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected." This is an inference based on the assumed truth of the 3 years-olds result. Macgruder 11:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The inference appears on page 270 of Rushton and Jensen's survey, at the bottom, continuing on the next page. It's two full paragraphs, including the sentence With increasing age there would be cumulative unfavorable effects on IQ for Black groups with respect to White groups. Yet national data (reviewed in Section 3) show that the size of the mean Black–White group difference remains approximately constant at 1 standard deviation and shows no significant change throughout the developmental period after about 3 years of age. Arbor 12:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So it should read "According to research by Rushton and Jensen, such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the Black-White IQ gap can be first detected." I would still like to know the sample size. Not so that we add our own conclusions, but just stated as a fact for readers of wikipedia" I know that it's helpful for me to know that one original study had an Asian sample of 12, and a black sample of 192. (Helps me to conclude that in the main that study was statistically meaningless :-)
 * FYI, I've started to go through some passages of the article and making some statements more neutral, as well as adding some info to give a better, wider picture. Anybody please feel free to edit as well.--Ramdrake 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a parent, and can remember life with toddlers. It makes tremendous sense to be that environment has a large effect on on IQ of 3 year olds. I also believe that the child's "genetic" IQ influences the enviroment that then influences the IQ. There are adoption studies that support this idea. Perhaps this only matters with children at both ends of the curve? I think that the "bell curve" is misleading. Kids with twice exceptional (giftedness plus disability) demonstrate that there is a lot going on on the inside to get that one number. What if we drew a curve that asked - "What percent of the population scores in the top 1% on any of several IQ subtests?" That curve would not be bell shaped, but it would be much more useful to groups that were looking to improve productivity for a group.

The question of bias in IQ tests is kind of besides the point. Our whole society is biased, we are soaked in it! The way to fix the tests and close the IQ gap is to fix society - which will and can be done. Is there such a thing as Race anyway? Of course not - there is only one species of Humans on the planet at this time.

Best Wishes

background reading - Templer and Arikawa 2006
Real life keeps me busy, but I wanted to paste this material here for background reading so that we have context. I don't know how far the hypothesis that the brain size differences are an adaptation to climate is accepted, but it appears to be a theory accepted (in the general) by everyone I've read. Skimming Beals 1984 I find they report a .9 correlation between climate and brain size. How the selective force of climate acted on brain size (theormoregulation versus stability of habitat, etc.) may be a matter of disagreement. Now... I can't imagine that any of that is appropriate material for the sub-sub section of brain size differences in this article which is currently under debate. But, to futher flesh out the matter, here is the abstract and intro block from Templer and Arikawa 2006.

"The impetus for our study was the contention of both Lynn [Lynn, R. (1991) Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255–296] and Rushton (Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; Rushton, J. P. (1997). Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the revised edition of S.J. Gould's the mismeasurement of man. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 169–180; Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, evolution, and behavior. A life history perspective (3rd edition). Port Huron: Charles Darwin Research Institute] that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational reflection of climate. The highest correlations were − 0.92 (rho = − 0.91) for skin color, − 0.76 (rho = − 0.76) for mean high winter temperature, − 0.66 (rho = − 0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho = 0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs. These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates. The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis."

"Both Rushton, 1995, Rushton, 1997 and Rushton, 2000 and Lynn (1991) have pointed out that ethnic groups in colder climates score higher on intelligence tests than ethnic groups in warmer climates. They contend that greater intelligence is needed to adapt to a colder climate so that, over many generations, the more intelligent members of a population are more likely to survive and reproduce. Their temperature and IQ analyses have been descriptive rather than quantitative, however. In the present quantitative study, we predicted a negative correlation between IQ and temperature. We hypothesized that correlations would be higher for mean winter temperatures (January in the Northern Hemisphere and July in the Southern Hemisphere) than for mean summer temperatures. Skin color was conceptualized as a variable closely related to temperature. It is viewed by the present authors as a multigenerational reflection of the climates one's ancestors have lived in for thousands of years. Another reason to predict correlations of IQ with temperature and skin color is the product–moment correlation reported by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) of 0.62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator. Beals et al. based their finding on 20,000 individual crania from every continent and representing 122 ethnically distinguishable populations. Jensen (1998) reasoned that natural selection would favor a smaller head with a less spherical shape because of better heat dissipation in hot climates. Natural selection in colder climates would favor a more spherical head to accommodate a larger brain and to have better heat conservation. [paragraph] We used an index of per capita income-real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to compare the correlations of income with IQ to those of temperature and skin color with IQ. There is a strong rationale for predicting a positive relationship between IQ and real GDP per capita. Common sense dictates that more intelligent populations can achieve greater scientific, technological, and organizational advancement. Furthermore, it is well established that conditions associated with poverty, such as malnutrition and inadequate prenatal/perinatal and other health care, can prevent the attainment of genetic potential. Lynn and Vanhanen (2002) did indeed find positive correlations between adjusted IQ and real GDP per capita of nations throughout the world. Their scatter plots vividly show that countries south of the Sahara Desert have both the lowest real GDPs per capita in the world and the lowest mean IQs in the world (in the 60s and 70s). The real GDP per capita in high-IQ countries is much more variable. For example, China and Korea have very high mean IQs but rather low real GDPs per capita. In this study, we considered only countries (N = 129) with primarily indigenous people—those with populations that have persisted since before the voyages of Christopher Columbus. It is acknowledged that there have been many migrations both before and after Columbus. However, the year 1492 has previously been used to define indigenous populations (Cavalli-Sforza, Menzoni, & Piazza, 1994)." --Rikurzhen 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's what others had to say about this research : (Response by Earl Hunt and Robert J Sternberg) "We argue that the report by Templer and Arikawa contains misleading conclusions and is based upon faulty collection and analysis of data. The report fails to hold up for quality of data, statistical analysis, and the logic of science." --Ramdrake 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hunt and Sternberg paper draws these conclusions from their analysis of Templer and Arikawa 2006


 * (1) Their measure of “skin color” is in fact a measure of social stereotypes about skin color. Social stereotypes and IQ scores may or may not be correlated. If they are the explanation certainly is not biological.
 * (2) The Lynn and Vanhanen estimates of national IQ are technically inadequate for several reasons, elucidated in the text.
 * (3) The statistical analyses offered require the assumption of full score equivalence of IQ scores, which cannot be maintained.
 * (4) The statistical analyses, when properly done to allow for size of the country, are dependent upon having accurate measures of both predominant skin color and IQ in the larger countries, but
 * (5) The concepts of predominant skin color and average IQ are highly suspect as meaningful concepts for countries of any size and/or social diversity.
 * (6) Equating intelligence test score (IQ) with intelligence in a conceptual sense, across cultures, is an extremely dubious operation.
 * (7) The Lynn-Rushton-Jensen hypothesis, which Templer and Arikawa purport to test, is a rhetorical argument rather than a testable scientific hypothesis.
 * (8) And even if we suspend disbelief about all the above issues, a worldwide correlation between IQ scores and skin color could be explained by many, philosophically contrary hypothesis. Therefore the fact, if it is a fact, is of no scientific value.

For those without access to Science Direct Templer and Arikawa compiled their measure of predominant skin color by asking three graduate students to rate it, hence the comment about social stereotypes, at best the correlations with regard to skin color are correlations between Lynn and Vanhanen estimates of national IQ and the estimates of skin color given by three graduate students who have never visited the countries. The technical inadequacies of the Lynn and Vanhanen data should perhaps be expanded upon in the relevant section.

--JonathanE 08:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Their results were not the material of interest, rather their background section which summarizes the literature. However, since you brought it up, I will point out that Sternberg and Hunt appears to have greatly misunderstood what was done with skin color. First, this "Hunt and Sternberg placed much more emphasis on the skin color correlations than the temperature correlations. This obscures the fact that the Templer and Arikawa study was primarily designed to test the contention of Rushton and Lynn that people in colder climates tend to have higher intelligence. Skin color and IQ were the two principal variables in the design of the study. The negative correlations between temperature and IQ strongly support the position of Rushton and Lynn. Skin color was conceptualized as a climatic variable, a multigenerational reflection of the climate one's ancestors have lived in for thousands of years. The very high correlation of IQ and skin color provides “frosting on the cake.”" Thus, Hunt and Sternberg need to explain what's conceptually wrong with an average termperature of a country. Second, "The raters used only two things—the skin color map of the world that does not have delineated national boundaries and maps of their choice that do show national boundaries." Hunt and Sternberg appear to think that the students filled in a map of global skin color by guessing. Instead, the students were taking an anthropological data set without country boundaries and overlaying countrying boundaries from another dataset (of their choosing) in order to get an average. The high reliability between the 3 students demonstrates that their translation from the unlabeled skin-color map to country averages was done similiarly to one another. --Rikurzhen 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which means little except all three students shared the same set of biases. Still doesn't make the study sound science.--Ramdrake 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The very simple fact that nearly all if not all the earlier civilizations (Sumerian, Egyptian, Nubian, Babylonian, Phoenician, Moorish, Hittite, Greek, Inca, Maya, etc.) until the Middle Ages actually flourished in equatorial or tropical settings is enough to disprove Rushton and Lynn's hypothesis. If it was a matter of evolutionary adaptation like they surmise, civilizations would appeared from North to South, not from South to North. Thus, Rushton and Lynn's hypothesis is easily falsified.--Ramdrake 16:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion requires many assumptions. Most notably, that arisal of civilization depends on mean IQ; secondly, that there were other groups with similar population densities necessary to found civilizations at other latitudes, but a civilization did not arise; thirdly, that the civilizations you cite had higher mean IQs than non-equatorial civilizations; and so on.  That humanity radiated from the equatorial regions outward seems to me sufficient to explain the early dominance of equatorial civilizations and the later dominance of non-equatorial civilizations, as well as the IQ results. --Algebraic 02:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The one thing that makes the Rushton-Lynn hypothesis fall flat on this is that their model has the various "racial" groups split from each other anywhere from 140,000 to about 30,000 years ago. The displacement of the "wealth and civilization" belt from South to North is at best about 500 to a thousand years old. Should the R-L hypothesis be true, at least "some" northerly early civilization would have been seen, but the fact is that there are none. If the R-L hypothesis is true, and divergence finished establishing itself about 30,000 years ago, why did civilization start first in countries like Egypt and Nubia, with large Black populations? Your objection doesn't take into account the timeline of "racial differentiation" versus the timeline of civilization arisal.--Ramdrake 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again with the assumptions. Could genetic adaptations arising 100,000+ years ago persist long enough to influence modern civilizations?  Yes -- they're heritable, believe it or not.  Does mean IQ correlate with a propensity to start a civilization?  That is the "Ramdrake Theory" and has no basis in Rushton/Lynn's work, nor is it a reasonable corollary.  As I understand it, the R&L's claim is that higher IQ is needed to survive in colder climates; by this argument, civilizations should arise first in the tropics, where the IQ threshold is lowest. --Algebraic 17:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to make a counter point for the hell of it, and then ask that we move on. Algebraic, although genetic adaptations arising 100,000+ years ago may persist, to think that no further genetic adaptations would occur in the intervening 100,000 years is myopic.  Heritability does not stop at arbitrary historical signposts.  And the "Algebraic Theory" that "civilizations should arise first in the tropics" according to R&L is similarly simplistic, ignoring the wide diversity of both history and common sense.  But enough of the sniping attacks, please accept my apologies Algebraic, for picking on you.  This sounds like reasonable, cited work being brought up by Ramdrake - can any pro-racialist hereditarians out there suggest a good placement for this information in the article?  It may help us if we tried "writing for the enemy", as it were, where if someone like Rikurzhen finds a particular study, he may ask me or Ramdrake or Ultramarine to find a good place to put it, and vice versa. --JereKrischel 04:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No myopia detected; I accept that further genetic adaptations may have occurred, without compromising my point. My purpose here is not to argue for a particular hypothesis, but rather to show that Ramdrake is engaging in original research by positing claims for which he (it?) has provided no support. Within this thread, I think original research is acceptable -- this is a talk page, after all -- but at least the original research can be held to a certain standard. Please understand that "Algebraic theory" is to be understood as nothing more nor less than is logically necessary given the claims of Rushton and Lynn, in this instance. I claim, by example, that Ramdrake is mistaken in its interpolation, and nothing more.

As for a placement for the criticism...feel free to add both the original study and the counterpoint to the article. Be bold! --Algebraic 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)